1 2026:CGHC:6258 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 97 of 2026 Jaydev Das @ Raju Bangali S/o Adhirdas Aged About 44 Years R/o Pakhajur, Distt. Uttar Bastar, Kanker at Present R/o Gudhripara, Narayanpur, Distt. Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh through P.S. Narayanpur, Distt. Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For the appellant : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate. For the State : Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 04/02/2026 1. This appeal is filed under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for grant of regular bail to the appellant who has been arrested in Crime No. 79/2025 registered at P.S. Narayanpur, District Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh for the offence punishable under Sections 74, 351, 138, ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2026.02.05 10:33:35 +0530 2 115(2) of BNS and Section 3(2)(v-a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. By impugned order dated 02.12.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge SCST (PA) Act, District Kondagaon the application filed by the applicant for grant of regular bail has been rejected which is under challenge in this appeal. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the prosecutrix lodged the FIR on 02.10.2025 alleging that on 25.09.2025 she was travelling in a pickup vehicle of the applicant Raju Bangali along other passengers and after dropping the other passengers, despite her repeated requests to drop her at a particular place, the appellant refused to drop her and took her to a field where he caught hold of her and tried to harass with an intention outrage her modesty and when her father called and talked to her on mobile, hearing the tone of his father, the appellant dropped the prosecutrix to her house and thereafter, she lodged the FIR. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that from the contents of FIR, it would appear that there is no intention to outrage her modesty and no offence is made out regarding atrocities under the Special Act and the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case projecting a concocted facts. He further submits that there is an inordinate delay in filing the FIR on 02.10.2025 whereas the incident is said to have taken place on 25.09.20205. He next submits submits that the appellant is in jail since 13.10.2025; there are total 14 witnesses in this case and the trial has not yet commenced and there is remote possibility of early conclusion of case, therefore, the appellant may be enlarged on bail. 3 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and supports the order of the courts below. She further submits that the applicant has previous record of 3 criminal cases, out of which, he has been acquitted in one criminal case. 6. The victim has appeared through VC from the concerned DLSA and got recorded no-objection to grant bail. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 8. Considering the nature of allegations levelled against the appellant and the over all facts situation of the case including the fact that the trial has not yet commenced; there is no immediate possibility of disposal of the case and further looking to the custody period of the appellant this Court is inclined to release the appellant on bail. 9. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 02.12.2025 passed by the Special Judge, District Kondagaon is set aside. 10. It is directed that the appellant shall be released on bail on his executing a personal bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the said Court as and when directed in that behalf. Cc as per rules. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao 4