Rakesh Pradhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh through- S.H.O Police Station- Chirmiri DistrictM.C.B, (C.G.) ... Respondent For the applicant : Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Advocate For the State : Ms. Priya Sharma, P.L.

¶11

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)

¶12

Order on Board

¶13

13/03/2026

¶14

1. This appeal is filed under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for grant of regular bail to the appellant as he has been arrested in Crime No.282/2025 registered at Police Station Chirimiri, District M.C.B., (CG) for the offences under Sections 69, 296, 351(2) of BNS & Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶15

2

¶16

2. By the impugned order dated 21.01.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (PoA) Act, Baikunthpur, in Special Criminal Case No. 35/2025 the application filed by the appellant for grant of regular bail has been rejected, which has been challenged in this appeal.

¶17

3. As per the prosecution case, the victim has lodged a report 02.11.2025 to the effect that the applicant used to commit sexual intercourse with her on the pretext of marriage from 12.05.2025 to 01.11.2025. It is alleged that on 01.11.2025, the applicant entered into the house of victim and again committed sexual intercourse with her and when the victim asked for marriage, the appellant abused her in obscene language and threatened her. The accused despite being aware that she belongs to a Scheduled Caste, induced her with promise of marriage and later on refused to marry her. On such report, crime was registered and the applicant was arrested.

¶18

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the appellant and the victim were familiar to each other and were in regular contact, thereby physical relations were established for a considerable time, which shows the voluntary and consensual relationship between them. He submits that the applicant was major at the time of filing report therefore she was consenting party and further there is inordinate delay in filing the FIR. He submits that the appellant is in jail since 03.11.2025; trial has not yet commenced and there is no immediate possibility of disposal of case, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail.

¶19

5. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and supports the order of the trial Court. He submits that the appellant had forcibly established physical relations for a considerable period with the victim on pretext of marriage knowing that she belonged to special caste and when she insisted for marriage, he abused her and rejected the proposal of marriage.

¶20

3

¶21

6. The victim along with her mother has appeared through VC from the concerned DLSA and objected to bail.

¶22

7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents available on record.

¶23

8. Having considered the submissions made by the parties and the overall facts and circumstances of the case especially the fact that the trial has not yet commenced, it is not a fit case to release the appellant on bail. Accordingly, this appeal is rejected.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

¶26

Rao

Rakesh Pradhan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Pradhan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jeevanlal Ray Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sagar Yadav Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Vikas Singh Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shubham Mishra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Xyz Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Manish Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh