2025:CGHC:57282 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2175 of 2025

1 - Sagar Tandia S/o Lakhanlal Tandia Aged About 24 Years R/o Gaurela, Tahsil Pendra Road, District Gaurela- Pendra- Marwahi (C.G.)

... Appellant(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Pendra, District Gaurela- Pendra- Marwahi (C.G.)

... Respondent(s)

For Appellant(s) : Shri Ashok Soni, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma)

Order on Board

25/11/2025 This appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as “Special Act”) has been filed against the order dated 08.10.2025 passed by the SDigpiteallcy siiagnled Judge (Atrocities), Bilaspur, District Bilaspur in by SUGUNA SUGUNA DUBEY DUBEY Date:

2025.11.28

11:09:37 +0530 connection with Crime No. 283/2025 registered at police station Pendra, District Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi(CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 69 of BNS and Section 3 (2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989.

2. As per the prosecution story, the facts in brief are that the victim lodged a written complaint at police station Pendra stating that she is a resident of village Ranjihap under Police Station Gourela, aged about 28 years and is employed as salesman at Grihasthi General Store, Pendra and resides in a rented house at Amarpur road, Pendra.

3. It is alleged that near the said general store, there is a shop named Balajee Cement where the accused is employed as a driver. During the course of their acquaintance, they developed affection for each other and started communicating frequently. On 05.07.2024, the accused visited the victim’s rented house and on the pretext of marrying her, established physical relations with her. Thereafter they continued to maintain physical intimacy on several occasions up to 30.08.2025. It is further alleged that subsequently, the appellant stopped responding to her calls and avoided any communication. When she confronted him and asked about the marriage, he refused to marry her. Acting upon the written complaint lodged by the victim the appellant was arrested.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution case is based on mere allegations without any corroborative evidence. He submits that the alleged physical relationship was consensual and there is no material on record to establish any fraudulent or coercive conduct on the part of the appellant. He submits that the addition of the offence under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is unwarranted as the appellant had no knowledge or intention regarding the caste status of the complainant. It is further submitted that the delay in lodging the complaint and the inconsistencies in the victim’s statement raise serious doubts about the prosecution case. He submits that the victim was a married lady and she has suppressed this fact from the appellant. He submits that mere reliance upon the statement of the victim does not meet the standard required for conviction. It is therefore submitted that the appeal be allowed and the appellant may be grant of bail .

5. On the other hand, counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that the prosecution case stands supported by credible evidence and the victim’s statement which was recorded immediately upon the complaint.

6. The victim is present in the court and raised objection for grant of bail to the appellant

7. The Court, after carefully perusing the record and hearing learned counsel for the parties and looking to the fact that the complainant was a married lady and the appellant is in jail since 17.09.2025, this Court is of the considered opinion that present is a fit case to grant bail to the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

8. It is directed that in the event of the appellant executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one local surety in the