1 2025:CGHC:31026 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1175 of 2025 1 - Mohd. Jamin S/o Mohd. Naim Khan, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Badwar, Police Station- Ramkola, Tahsil- Pratappur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Incharge, Outpost- Ganeshmod, Police Station Balrampur, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Chandradeep Prasad, Advocate. For State : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 07 / 07 / 2025 1. This appeal has been filed by the accused/appellant under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, against the order dated 09.01.2025 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Balrampur, Ramanujganj (C.G.) in Bail Application No. 15/2025 whereby the bail application filed by the appellant under SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.07.09 11:26:15 +0530 2 Section 482 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 has been rejected. 2. The appellant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.90/2024, registered at Outpost-Ganeshmod Police Station –Balrampur, District-Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 354(a), 376(2)(n), 419, 420 of IPC and 3(1)(b)(ii), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act 1989'). 3. The facts of the case, in brief, is that the complainant/victim lodged a report at the Ganeshmod Police Outpost, alleging that the appellant/accused, posing as Ajay Toppo, a Class II teacher at Trikunda, promised to marry her and coerced her into having physical relations multiple times since March 2023. The accused also allegedly cheated her by taking 5,75,000/- under ₹ the pretext of securing a job. Based on the complainant's report, a case was registered at Police Station Balrampur, Police Outpost Ganeshmod, under Crime No. 90/2024. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused under Sections 354(A), 376(2)(n), 419, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(b)(2) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, with the accused being absconding. Apprehending arrest in this case, the appellant presented an anticipatory bail application before the trial court, which was dismissed under the order in question. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case 3 due to a pre-existing dispute. It is further submitted that the appellant has never committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. The charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no likelihood of the appellant influencing or tampering with the prosecution’s evidence or witnesses. Therefore, it is prayed to set aside the impugned order dated 09.01.2025 and appellant may be granted anticipatory bail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the state opposes the anticipatory bail application of the appellant and submits that the order of the trial court in question is appropriate. Hence, the application is liable to be dismissed. 6. Today, the prosecutrix appeared through video conferencing from the concerned DLSA and raised his objection regarding the grant of bail to the appellant. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. After hearing the counsel for the parties and considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly looking to the material available on record and the evidence against the appellant, I do not find any good ground to grant anticipatory bail to the appellant. 9. Accordingly, the present appeal is rejected. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Sourabh P.