1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1016 of 2025 Vifal Ram S/o Late Bagarsai Aged About 20 Years Resident Of Village Maheshpur, Police Station Premnagar, District- Surajpur (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station Ajak Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Sunita Sahu, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 10.06.2025 1. The victim along with her mother appeared before this Court through virtual mode from the concerned DLSA and raised their objection in granting anticipatory bail to the appellant. 2. This appeal u/s 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 01.05.2025 passed by the Special Judge, (Atrocities) Surajpur, District Surajpur in B. A. No.268/2025 whereby the application filed by the appellant under Section 482 of BNSS apprehending BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2025.06.12 18:36:26 +0530 2 his arrest in connection with Crime No.10/2025 registered at Police Station AJAK Surajpur, District Surajpur (CG) for the offence punishable under Section 64 BNS and Section 3 (2) (v) of the SC/ST Act has been rejected. 3. The case of prosecution, in short, is that on 23.04.2025 when the victim/prosecutrix was going to the forest to collect wood, the appellant came on a motorcycle, caught hold of her, gagged her mouth, threw her in the field and forcefully committed sexual intercourse with her. On report being lodged by the victim, offence under the aforesaid sections has been registered against the appellant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that on 23.04.2025, the husband of the victim was creating nuisance in the village after consuming liquor which was objected by the appellant, hence a false report has been lodged by the victim against the appellant on 24.04.2025. He further submits that the bail application has been rejected by the trial Court on the ground that there is a bar under Section 18 & 18 (2) of the SC/ST Act. However, the case under Atrocities Act is not prima facie made out and therefore anticipatory bail should be granted to the appellant. In support of his argument, he relied on Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala and Another, 2024 SCC Online SC 2249 and Prithvi Raj Chauhan vs. Union of India and others reported in (2020) 4 SCC 727. 3 5. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, opposing the anticipatory bail, submits that there is a named FIR in which particular caste is mentioned and the MLC report also supports the case of prosecution. He submits that from the evidence on record, a case of atrocity is made out against the appellant and therefore he is not eligible for grant of anticipatory bail considering the bar under section 18 of the Atrocities Act. Hence, the appeal should be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. The FIR registered in this case mentions a particular caste. According to the MLC report, scratches and abrasions were found on the private part of the victim. The rejection of the anticipatory bail by the trial Court on the basis of the bar of Section 18 of the Atrocities Act is found to be proper as there is mention of a particular caste in the FIR. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case particularly the nature and gravity of offence and the material collected and available on record against the appellant, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. 8. Accordingly, the present appeal for grant of anticipatory bail stands dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Khatai