Bail may be granted in serious offenses, including those under the SC/ST Act, when the victim is a major and expresses no objection, and there is a significant delay in the trial's conclusion.

Order On Board

1. On 24.02.2026, the victim appeared before this Court through virtual mode from the concerned DLSA and expressed her no objection in granting bail to the appellant.

2. 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 06.01.2026 passed by the Special Judge (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Jashpur (C.G.) whereby the bail application filed by the appellant under Section 483 of BNSS in connection with Crime No.59/2025 registered at Police Station Narayanpur, District Jashpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296 , 115(2), 351(3), 64(1) of BNS and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va), 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act has been rejected.

3. As per the prosecution case, on 27.05.2025 at about 6:00 p.m. when the prosecutrix/victim was going to her elder sister’s house, near Gadabhar Sukvasupara pond, the appellant caught hold of her hand and abused her with filthy language. It is alleged that the appellant threw the victim near the embankment of the pond and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. On report being lodged in this regard, offence under the aforesaid sections has been registered against the appellant.

4. Learned Counsel for appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. She submits that the prosecutrix was a major and married woman. She submits that the victim was a consenting party and has also expressed her no-objection in granting bail to the appellant. The husband of the prosecutrix has stated that he had no knowledge of the alleged incident of rape. The victim's sister and brother-in-law have said that the victim came the next morning and they were unaware of her whereabouts throughout the night. She further submits that out of total 19 witness, only 7 have been examined, the appellant is in jail since 28.05.2025 and there is no likelihood of the trial to be concluded at the earliest, therefore, considering all these facts the appellant may be released on bail.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the said prayer and submits that the victim has supported the case of prosecution and considering the nature of offence, the appellant does not deserve to be released on bail.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the court statement of the husband of the victim and also considering the fact that the victim is a major lady, she has expressed her no-objection in granting bail to the appellant, there are total 19 witnesses out of which only 7 have been examined, the appellant is in jail since 28.05.2025 and there is all possibility of the trial taking considerable time for its conclusion, this Court is of the opinion that prima facie, a case for grant of bail to the appellant is made out.

8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 06.01.2026 is set aside. It is directed that the appellant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court. The appellant is directed to appear before the trial Court on each and every date to be given to him by the said Court till completion of the trial.

9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information.