1 2025:CGHC:15823 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 550 of 2025 1 - Abhishek Singh Karchuli Alias Betul S/o Mahendra Singh Aged About 40 Years R/o Upside Of R.K. Traders Building Mission Chock Ambikapur District Sarguja Chhattisgarh. 2 - Neelam Singh W/o Mahendra Singh Aged About 63 Years R/o Upside Of R.K. Traders Building Mission Chock Ambikapur District Sarguja Chhattisgarh. 3 - Astha Soni S/o Shankar Prasad Soni Aged About 27 Years R/o Ambikapur District Sarguja Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer P.S. Ambikapur District Sarguja Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shreshtha Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 03/04/2025 1. Pursuant to the order dated 18.03.2025 the complainant appeared through virtual mode from DLSA, Surguja and submitted that she has no objection in granting bail to the appellants, her submission is taken on record. 2 2. The instant criminal appeal is preferred under Section 14(A)(II) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, 'the SC/ST Act') against the order dated 22.02.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, (Atrocities) Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) in Bail Application No. 111 of 2025, whereby the application filed by the appellant under Section 482 of B.N.S.S. in connection with Crime No. 23/2025, registered at Police Station Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) for the offence under Section 376(2)(n), 294, 323, 506, 34 of I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(1)(r) (s), 3 (2)(v-a) of the SC ST Act, has been rejected. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 06.01.2025, the victim, who is aged about 30 years, have lodged a written complaint to the police that she introduced with the appellant No. 1 Abhishek Singh and he proposed her that he will marry with her. In the year 2018, he took her in a rented house on the pretext of marriage and made physical relation with her. Thereafter, he continued in making physical relation by giving allurement that he will marry with her. He also taken huge money from her and have not return back her money. The appellant No.1 also used to talk with other girls and having affair with them also, it was informed by her to his mother and then his mother has abused her by filthy language and threatened her. The friend of the appellant No.1 who also abused her and assaulted her on 28.12.2024 by hand and fist and intentionally insulted in the name of her caste and then she lodged the report. Based on the written complaint, FIR has been registered on 06.01.2025 for the offence under Section 376(2)(n), 294, 323, 506 and 34 of IPC and 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v-a) of the SC/ST Act, against the appellants in which they are apprehending their arrest. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the offence. The allegation against the appellant No.1 that since 2018, he made physical relation with her on the pretext of marriage. He has taken money from her also but have not return 3 back and the appellant No.1 is also having affair with other girls. The allegation against the appellant No. 2 and 3 are that they abused the victim with filthy language and assaulted on 28.12.2024 by hand and fist. He would also submits that the appellant is fully matured girl aged about 30 years, their physical relation was continued since 2018 and only on suspicion that the appellant No.1 is having affair with some other girls, she lodged the report whereas no such incident of any abusing or assaulting has happened and it is only to extort money from the appellants the FIR has been lodged. It is also submitted by him that the report has also been lodged after a long delay and there is no explanation for delay in lodging the report. Their physical relation was continued since 2018 and it is not the allegation that the appellant No.1 is knowingly committed the offence but only on the suspicion that he is having affair with other girls, report has been lodged. The allegation against the appellants No.2 and 3 are related with the act of assault and abuse the complainant and bailable offence under the IPC except the offence of 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Act. He would also submits that the offence under Section 3(2)(v-a) of the SC ST is not attracted against the present appellants. The offence has not been committed knowingly that the victim belongs to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes community, therefore, provision under Section 18 of the Act of 1989 would not be attracted and merely mentioning of the offence under the Act 1989 in the case would not be sufficient to dislodge the appellant to take benefit of anticipatory bail under the provisions of 482 of BNSS, therefore, the appellants may be extended the benefit of anticipatory bail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and would submit that the FIR has been registered for the offence under Section 376(2)(n) and other offence of IPC and Section 3(1)(r) (s) and 3(2)(v-a) of the SC ST Act, he had read over the contents of the FIR in support of their contention. She would 4 also submits that there being sexually exploited by the appellant No.1 on the pretext of marriage and the victim was being abused and assaulted by the appellant No. 2 and 3. In view of the provision of Section 18 of the Act, 1989 anticipatory bail application of the appellants is not maintainable and even otherwise in view of the allegation made by the victim against the appellants their anticipatory bail application has been dismissed by the learned trial Court, therefore, the appeal is also liable to be dismissed. 6. The victim/objector appeared through virtual mode in pursuance of the notice issued to her vide order dated 18.03.2025 and raised objection in granting anticipatory bail to the appellants. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the appeal as well as case diary. 8. It is when the offence is alleged against any person by a person belonging to scheduled caste and scheduled tribes community attracting the provisions of the Act, 1989, the application for grant of anticipatory bail is not to be entertained. However, there is no absolute bar in considering the application for grant of anticipatory bail, if the appellants succeeds to make out a case that after taking into consideration the entire allegation as reflected in the FIR, the provisions of the Act, 1989, would not be attracted. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Prithvi Raj Chouhan Vs. Union of India and others, reported in (2020) 4 SCC 727 has observed in paras 11, 32 and 33 as under:- "11. Concerning the applicability of provisions of Section 438 CrPC, it shall not apply to the cases under the 1989 Act. However, if the complaint does not make out a prima facie case for applicability of the provisions of the 1989 Act, the bar created by Section 18 and 18-A(i) shall not apply. We have clarified this aspect while deciding the review petitions. 32. As far as the provision of Section 18-A and anticipatory bail is concerned, the judgment of Mishra, J. has stated that in cases where 5 no prima facie materials exist warranting arrest in a complaint, the court has the inherent power to direct a pre-arrest bail. 33. I would only add a caveat with the observation and emphasis that while considering any application seeking pre-arrest bail, the High Court has to balance the two interests; i.e. that the power is not so used as to convert the jurisdiction into that under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, but that it is used sparingly and such orders made in very exceptional cases where no prima facie offence is made out as shown in the FIR, and further also that if such orders are not made in those cases, the result would inevitably be a miscarriage of justice or abuse of process of law. I consider such stringent terms, otherwise contrary to the philosophy of bail, absolutely essential, because a liberal use of the power to grant pre-arrest bail would defeat the intention of Parliament.” 10. In the present case, the contents of the FIR mentioned that the appellant No.1 has developed physical relation with the victim on the pretext of marriage since 2018. The first incident of alleged rape is said to have been committed in the year 2018 and thereafter their physical relation was continued. It is only when the appellant No.1 was seen by chatting with other girls, the victim informed the same to his mother and when they allegedly abused her and assaulted her by hand and fist the report has been lodged on 06.01.2025. Had the appellant No.1 been committed offence knowing that the victim belongs to the scheduled caste and scheduled tribes community, he would not given any assurance of marriage to her. The victim being a major educated girl engaged in making physical relation with the appellant No.1 who know pros and cons of their relation. From the allegation made against the appellant Nos. 2 and 3 in the written complaint that she was being abused in the name of her caste is also not sufficient the prima facie constitute offence under the SC/ST Act. 11. In view of the aforementioned facts of the case and allegation in the FIR made by the victim in the opinion of this Court, the offence under Section 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v-a) of the SC/ST Act, 1989 would not be attracted against 6 the appellants for considering the anticipatory bail application, therefore, it will fall within the exceptional case. 12. Further from the nature of allegation leveled by the victim against the appellants and the delay in lodging the report, transaction of the money between them and also that the victim herself involved in making physical relation with the appellant No.1 since 2018, the length of their relationship and the appellant Nos. 2 and 3 being a lady makes them entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. 13. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellants is allowed and the impugned order dated 22.02.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Ambikapur, District- Surguja (in bail application No.111/2025) is set aside. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the appellants in connection with the aforesaid offence, they shall be released on bail by the officer arresting them on their furnishing a personal bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Arresting Officer. The applicants shall also abide by the following conditions :- (i) that the appellants shall make himself available for interrogation before the investigating officer as and when required; (ii) that the appellants 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) that the appellants shall not act, in any manner, which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and (iv) that the appellants shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial, unless exempted. 14. It is made clear that any observation made in this order is restricted only for consideration of the present appeal. The learned trial Court shall decide the 7 case on its own merits without being influenced by any observation made in this order. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.04.09 19:59:56 +0530