Kushal Diwan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short “the SC/ST Act”) for setting aside of order dated 07.07.2026 passed by the Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Kondagaon (C.G.) whereby the regular bail application filed by the appellant under Section 483 of BNSS in connection with Crime

¶18

2

¶19

No. 13/2026 registered at Police Station- Mardapal, DistrictKondagaon (C.G.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 69, 64 of BNS and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, 1989 has been rejected.

¶20

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that an FIR was lodged by the victim to the effect that in May 2025, the accused developed a love relationship with the victim knowingly very well that she is a member of the Scheduled Castes, and thereafter repeatedly made physical relation with her on the pretext of marriage. As a result, the victim became pregnant and gave birth to a child.

¶21

3. Mr. Vinay Nagdev, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that there was a consensual relationship between the appellant and the prosecutrix; therefore, the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act is not attracted. He would submit that due to unavoidable circumstances, the appellant could not marry the prosecutrix, thereafter she lodged the FIR. The charge-sheet has already been filed, the appellant is in jail since 27.04.2026, and prior to the lodging of the FIR, she gave birth to a child; thus, he prays that the appeal may be allowed.

¶22

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the criminal appeal as well as the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant. He would submit that there are serious allegations against the

¶23

3

¶24

appellant. He would further submit that the appellant, despite being well aware that the prosecutrix belongs to a Scheduled Caste, maintained physical relations with her for a considerable period on the pretext of marriage, as a result, she conceived and gave birth to a child, and subsequently he refused to marry her; thus, he prays that the appeal may be dismissed.

¶25

5. On 15.09.2026, the victim/prosecutrix appeared before this Court and raised objection to the grant of bail to the appellant.

¶26

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

¶27

7. Having considered the rival submissions and the material available on record, particularly the fact that there appears to have been a consensual relationship between the appellant and the prosecutrix, who was a major at the time of the incident; the prosecutrix conceived and gave birth to a child, thereafter the FIR came to be lodged; the charge-sheet has already been filed and the appellant is in custody since 27.04.2026; though objection was raised by the prosecutrix in releasing of the appellant on bail, but pre-trial detention of the appellant would serve no fruitful purpose as conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant appeal is allowed and the order dated 07.07.2026, passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)Act, 1989, Kondagaon is hereby set-aside .

¶28

4

¶29

8. It is directed that in the event of the appellant executing a personal

¶30

bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the

¶31

satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, he shall be released on bail, on

¶32

following conditions :-

¶33

(I) he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court,

¶34

(ii) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, and

¶35

(iii) he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial.

¶36

The observation made hereinabove is for the purpose of deciding this bail application only, the trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE

¶39

Nadim

Kushal Diwan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kushal Diwan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases