##PAGE1##

1

2026:CGHC:14524 Digitally signed by

RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRA No. 635 of 2026 Pradeep Jha S/o Shri Bilat Jha, aged about 35 years, R/o Shahid Veer

Narayan Singh Nagar, Khursipar, Bhilai, Tahsil & Distt - Durg, (C.G.)

... Appellant Versus

State of Chhattisgarh, through the Station House Officer, Police Station -

Khursipar, Distt - Durg, (C.G.)

(Name of Police Station correctly mentioned as per chargesheet)

... Respondent (Cause title is taken from Case Information System Software.)

For Appellant : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate. For State/Respondent : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment On Board

27.03.2026

1. This appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short “the SC/ST Act”) has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 03.01.2026 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Durg (C.G.) whereby the regular bail application filed by the appellant under Section 483 of BNSS in connection with Crime No. 287/2025 registered at Police Station Khursipar, District- Durg

2

(C.G.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 74, 296, 115(2), 351(3) of BNS and Section 3(1)(w)(i) & (ii) of the

SC/ST Act, 1989 has been rejected.

2. The prosecution case in short is that the victim, a 25-year-old

woman, lodged a complaint against the accused/appellant on 06.11.2025 alleging that at around 08:00 a.m., while her husband was speaking on a mobile phone, the accused/appellant returned from duty on a scooty, verbally abused her husband using caste- based remarks, and slapped him. When the complainant attempted to intervene, the appellant allegedly abused her as well and, with the intent to outrage her modesty, caught hold of her hand and breast. Based on this complaint, a case was registered against the appellant under Sections 74, 296, 115(2), and 351(3) of the BNS, 2023, along with Sections 3(1)(w)(i) and (ii) of the

SC/ST Act, 1989.

3. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the

appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. It is further submitted that the false case has been lodged by the police against the appellant on 06.11.2025. The prosecution story is not corroborated with the medical evidence as the MLC of both the complainant and her husband shows that there is no external injury found over the body which further makes the prosecution story doubtful. The evidence collected by the prosecution are also not prima facie sufficient to hold the appellant guilty of the alleged offences. The appellant is in jail since 07.11.2025 and the trial is

3

likely to take considerable time for its completion, therefore, the

appellant may be released on bail.

4. Learned counsel for the State/respondent opposes the prayer for

bail, submitting that the victim is a married lady. He next submits that the victim has fully supported the case of the prosecution in her statement recorded under Section 180-183 of the B.N.S.S, 2023. There is sufficient evidence on record against the appellant and the fact that the appellant has more than 06 criminal antecedents. However, charge-sheet has been filed in this case. Therefore, it is prayed that the appellant may not be granted bail

at this stage.

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

perused the record.

6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case

particularly the nature and gravity of offence and the material collected and available on record against the appellant and also considering the fact that the appellant has more than 06 criminal antecedents and also the charge-sheet has been filed in this case, therefore, at this stage, I do not find it appropriate to release the

appellant on bail.

7. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed

Sd/-

(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judge

U.K. Raju