Sanat Kumar Jhara Vs State of Chhattisgarh

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 02.12.2025 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) whereby the bail application filed by the appellant under Section 483 of BNSS in connection with Crime No.28/2025 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 69, 115(2), 351(2) of BNS and Section 3 (2)(v) of the SC/ST Act has been rejected.

¶15

2

¶16

2. As per the prosecution case, on 14.08.2024, the appellant took the prosecutrix to a hotel room, applied Sindoor (vermilion) on her head, claimed she was his wife and committed sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, he had physical relations with her multiple times at different locations, including a rented house on 14.03.2025. Later, the appellant allegedly assaulted her, citing caste differences, and threatened her life. On report being lodged in this regard, offence under the aforesaid sections has been registered against the appellant.

¶17

3. Learned Counsel for appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. He submits that the victim and her mother have been examined before the trial Court and they have not supported the case of prosecution and turned hostile. He further submits that out of total 19 witness, only 2 witnesses i.e. the victim and her mother have been examined till date, the appellant is in jail since 27.09.2025 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.

¶18

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the said prayer and submits that the appellant has one previous criminal record and considering the nature of offence, he does not deserve to be released on bail.

¶19

5. The victim is not connected from the concerned DLSA though notice has been served.

¶20

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

¶21

7. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the court statements of the victim and her mother and also considering the fact that there are total 19 witnesses, out of which only 2 witnesses i.e. the victim and her mother have been examined so far, the appellant is in jail since

¶22

3

¶23

27.09.2025 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.

¶24

8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed . The impugned order dated 02.12.2025 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.

¶25

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

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

( Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal ) Judge

¶28

Khatai

Sanat Kumar Jhara v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanat Kumar Jhara v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devnandan Rathiya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Aarti Khanna Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Aman Banjare Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Sudha Singh Vs Ankit Singh

Lalan Jaiswal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajkumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh