2025:CGHC:59015 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2297 of 2025 Mithlesh Das S/o Bechu Das Aged About 19 Years Cast Panika, R/o Village K.P. P.S. Ambikapur, Tehsil Lundra, District- Surguja (C.G.)

... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Ambikapur, (Kotwali) District- Surguja (C.G.)

--- Respondents For Appellant : Mr. NK Sinha, Advocate.

For Respondent-State : Mr. KK Bahrani, PL.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma

Order on Board

04/12/2025

1. This appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Caste &

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for short, 'Act of 1989') is filed against impugned rejection order dated 10.09.2025 (Annexure A-1), whereby appellants' application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS for grant of bail is rejected.

564/2025 registered at Police Station -Ambikapur, (Kotwali) District-

Surguja (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 115(2), 64(1) of the BNS and Section 3(2)(V) of the Act of 1989.

3. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 10.08.2025, the victim had gone to her brother-in-law's house for work and while returning alone at around 10.00 pm, the appellant met her and with the intention of doing wrong, suddenly forcibly caught her, took her to her brother-in-law's garden and beat her with hands and fists, she got bruises on her face and lips, the appellant covered her mouth with his hand. It is primarily shown that the offence of sexual intercourse by force and coercion has been committed. Based upon report, FIR was registered against the appellant and he has been arrested.

4. Learned counsel for appellant submits that appellant has been falsely implicated in this case, he has not committed any offence as alleged against him. There is no specific evidence/material available to connect the appellant in the alleged crime. On the date of alleged incident, victim was major and there was consensual relationship between the victim and appellant for quite some time. There is delay in lodging of FIR which has not been explained properly by the prosecution. Medical report of victim does not support the case of prosecution. There is no any other previous criminal antecedent

trial may take time, hence, appellant may be released on bail.

5. Learned State Counsel opposing submission of counsel for the

appellant submits that there is specific alleged against the appellant

of committing the alleged offence/crime, hence, he is not entitled for grant of bail.

6. Heard counsel for respective parties.

7. On 20.11.2025, victim/prosecutrix was appeared before this Court through virtual mode from the concerned District Legal Services Authority and she raised objection in granting bail to appellant.

8. Considering entire facts and circumstances of case, submissions of counsel for the parties, nature of allegation and injury suffered by the victim, particularly the contents of FIR and other material/evidence available in the case diary, I am not inclined to allow this appeal.

9. Accordingly, appeal is hereby rejected/dismissed. However, looking to the detention period of the appellant, concerned Court below is directed to conclude the trial, expeditiously as soon as possible, if there is no any legal impediment.

Certified copy as per rules.

Sd/-

(Arvind Kumar Verma)

Judge J/-