01Facts
The appellant challenged the Special Judge’s order rejecting his bail application in a case registered under Sections 69, 296(B) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
¶ 1The prosecution alleged that he sexually exploited the victim, a member of a Scheduled Caste, on the promise of marriage between 6 December 2024 and 28 January 2026, and later refused to marry her.
¶ 2The appellant contended that the relationship was consensual, the victim was an adult, the charge-sheet had been filed, and he had no criminal antecedents; the State opposed bail.
¶ 3–4The appellant had been in custody since 6 May 2026.
¶ 602Issues
i.1. Whether the appellant should be granted regular bail pending trial.
¶ 3–6ii.2. Whether the Special Judge’s order rejecting bail should be set aside.
¶ 1, 603Law Applied
Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, provided the basis for the appeal against the Special Judge’s order.
¶ 1The alleged offences were under Sections 69, 296(B) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.
¶ 1The Court cited no precedent or detailed legal test for bail; its decision considered the case materials, including the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, alongside the circumstances relevant to release on bail.
¶ 6Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Section 3
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 69Section 296Section 351
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 183
04Reasoning
The Court noted that the FIR and the victim’s statement indicated a degree of intimacy between the appellant and the victim over the alleged period, and that she had visited hotels with him on several occasions.
¶ 6Without expressing any view on the merits, the Court also took account of the filing of the charge-sheet, the absence of criminal antecedents, and the appellant’s custody since 6 May 2026. On those circumstances, it found the appeal should be allowed.
¶ 605Holding
The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Special Judge’s order dated 22 May 2026.
¶ 6It directed that the appellant be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety to the satisfaction of the trial Court, subject to conditions prohibiting interference with witnesses or the fair trial and requiring attendance at each hearing until disposal of the trial.
¶ 7Original Court PDF
RAJ KUMAR GUPTA @ CHINTUvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
