##PAGE1##

1

Digitally signed

by SHUBHAM

SHUBHAM SINGH

SINGH RAGHUVANSHI

RAGHUVANSHI Date:

2026.01.30

14:13:36 +0530

2026:CGHC:5001

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRA No. 84 of 2026

Rajesh Kumar Sahu S/o Late Punuram Sahu (Wrongly Mentioned As

Punaram In The Order Dated 26-06-2025) Aged About 38 Years R/o

Village- Borjhara Bazar Para (Mentioned Only As Borjhara In The

Order Dated 26-06-2025), Police Station- Bhakara, District :

Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

... Appellant

versus

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station Hosue Officer, P.S.

Bhakara, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

... Respondent

(Cause-title is taken from CIS)

For Appellant : Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate

For Respondent/State : Mr. Karan Bahrani, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswa l

Order On Board

29/01/2026

1. The appellant has filed this appeal for the second time under

Section 14-A (2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

1989 for grant of regular bail as he is arrested in connection

with crime number 227/2024 registered at police station

Bhakara, District Dhamtari (C.G.) for commission of offence

punishable under Sections 331 (2), 74 of BNS and offence under

2

Sections 3 (1)(द) & 3 (1)(v) of SCST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act

1989.

2. Vide order dated 26.06.2025 passed in CRA No.953/2025 the

appeal which was filed by the appellant for the first time has

been dismissed on merits by this Court.

3. As per case of the prosecution, the complainant and victim are

neighbors. The complainant lodged the report to the effect that

on 22.12.2024 after having dinner, she went to sleep in her

house with grand-parents, brother and other family members.

At around 1:00 AM, she was going to bathroom in the country-

yard and on the way near kitchen room, the appellant was

hiding and caught hold of her and tried to outrage her modesty.

When she raised alarm, her family members rushed there and

the appellant fled away by jumping the wall. Based on above,

offence was registered against the Appellant.

4. By order dated 09.12.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge

(atrocities) Dhamtari in Special Criminal Case No.09/2025, the

second bail application filed by the appellant has been rejected

against which the appellant has filed this appeal.

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that the

appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the

case. He further submits that the victim and her grandmother

has already been examined and the victim has not supported

the case of prosecution. He further submit that there is nothing

to suggest that the offence was committed by the appellant only

on the ground that the prosecutrix belongs to Schedule Caste.

He lastly submits that the appellant is in jail since 15.04.2025,

out of 11 prosecution witnesses, only two have been examined

till date and the case is likely to take some time to be finalized,

therefore, it is prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the

appellant may be released on bail.

6. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the State

opposes the bail application and submits that there is sufficient

3

evidence available on record against the Appellant, therefore,

the Appellant may not be granted benefit bail.

7. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and

perused the documents available on record.

8. Considering the circumstances of the case, evidence collected by

the prosecution, statement of the victim, change of

circumstances, detention period of the appellant and the fact

that the appeal is likely to take some time to be finalized,

without further commenting on merits of the case, this Court is

of the opinion that it would be appropriate to release the

appellant on bail.

9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order

dated 09.12.2025 passed by the Trial Court is set-aside.

10.

It is directed that the appellant shall be released on bail on

executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one

solvent surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial

Court for his appearance before the said