1 2025:CGHC:34667 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1191 of 2025 Kundan Kumar Sinha S/o Prem Lal Sinha Aged About 29 Years R/o Chhina Post Khadgahan Police Station Suregaon Tehsil Doundi Lohara, District- Balod (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. P.S. Durg District - Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent/State For Appellant : Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 21.07.2025 1. The victim appeared through virtual mode from concerned DLSA on 15.07.2025 and raised objection in granting anticipatory bail to the appellant. 2. This appeal u/s 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short “the Special Act”) has been preferred for grant of anticipatory bail by the appellant against the order dated 12.06.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC & ST, (Prevention of Atrocities Act) Durg, District Durg (C.G.) in Bail Application No.SC/ST 2/2025 SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.07.22 10:44:35 +0530 2 whereby the application filed by the appellant under Section 482 of BNSS apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.176/2025 registered at Police Station Durg/AJAK, District Durg (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 69 of BNS and Section 3(2)(v) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been rejected. 3. The case of prosecution, in short, is that the victim who belongs to scheduled caste lodged a written report in concerned Police Station against the appellant alleging therein that the appellant on the pretext of marriage committed sexual intercourse with her several times and thereafter refused to marry her. Based on the victim’s report, offence has been registered against the applicant. 4. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that prior to 6-7 years, there was a love affair between the appellant and the victim and she was a consenting party. She is a major lady and the FIR does not disclose that the crime was committed on the basis of caste. He further submits that the appellant is public servant and working in Armed Forces and on denial by the appellant for marriage, a false report has been lodged by the victim against him. He further submits that an agreement between the family members of the appellant and the victim has also been taken place as regards to their marriage. Hence, it is prayed that the anticipatory bail should be granted. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon a judgment passed by Hon’ble The Supreme Court in Prashant Shrivastava Vs. 3 State of Chhattisgarh & anr., Criminal Appeal No.505/2025, dated January 31, 2025. The counsel has also relied upon a judgment passed by this Court in Pankaj Sharma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, CRA No. 2174/2023, dated January 5, 2024. 5. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, opposes the anticipatory bail, submits that the injured/victim and the appellant known to each others prior to the incident as they living in a same village. Further, in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, she has stated against the appellant. A case of atrocity is made out against the appellant and he is not eligible for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, the appeal should be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. The cases cited by the learned counsel for the appellant do not support his case due to factual differences. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, further the nature and gravity of offence and the evidence collected by the prosecution against the appellant, this Court does not find any cogent reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. 8. Accordingly, without commenting on merits of the case, the appeal for grant of anticipatory bail stands dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham