1 2025:CGHC:33003 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1242 of 2025 1 - Shubham Agrawal S/o Ramesh Agrawal Aged About 31 Years R/o House No. 54, Ward No. 5, Main Road N.H.-53, Lakhagad, District - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Of Ajak (Anusuchit Jati Kalyan) Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Maneesh Sharma, Advocate. For State : Mr. Karan Baharani, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 15 / 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 17.06.2025 passed by learned Special Judge SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) in Bail Application No. 1607/2025 whereby the bail application filed by the appellant under Section 482 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 has been rejected. 2. The appellant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.223/2025, registered at Police Station – Ajak Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.07.16 10:27:05 +0530 2 ( अनुसूचित जा तित कल्या ण), District-Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 64(1), 64(2) of BNS, 2023 and Section 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 on 23.04.2025, the victim lodged a report to Police Station Gudiyari to this effect that she acquainted with the appellant about 4 years ago through Facebook, the appellant provided his mobile No. 8109420022 and used to talk and the appellant repeatedly insisted to meet her knowing the fact that she is married and she has a girl child. On 15.11.2022, the appellant came to Raipur from Pithora to meet her. She met with the appellant at the house of her friend Muskan. When her friend went outside the house to bring some groceries, the appellant promised to marry and keep her child and committed sexual intercourse with her against her will. Thereafter, she narrated the incident to her friend Muskan. It is also alleged that the appellant committed sexual intercourse with her many times in the Pearl Hotel and Krishna Hotel, on the pretext of marriage. Based on this offence has been registered against the present appellant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had moved an anticipatory bail application against the said report earlier registered under Section 64(1), 64(2), bearing Crime No. 223/2025 at Police Station- Gudiyari, Raipur, before the Sessions Court, Raipur, which was allowed vide order dated 02.05.2025. Thereafter, Section 3(2)(v) of the Special Act has been added in the charge sheet; therefore, the appellant again moved an anticipatory bail application before the trial Court, which 3 was dismissed vide impugned order dated 17.06.2025. He next submits that there is no mention of caste related things in the FIR, therefore, prima facie, the case is not made out against the appellant under the Special Act. The prohibition of Section 18 of the Special Act does not apply. The 'order in question' of the trial court is not valid and appropriate in the light of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Prathvi Raj Chouhan vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in (2020) 4 SCC 727. Therefore, the appellant may be granted anticipatory bail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the state opposes the anticipatory bail application of the appellant. The order of the trial court in question is appropriate. Hence, the application is liable to be dismissed. 6. The victim appeared through video conferencing from the concerned DLSA and raised her objection to grant of bail to the appellant. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the matter of Pavas Sharma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and another (CRA No. 806/2020, order dated 22.01.2021), has elaborately dealt with the issue pertaining to offence under the Act, 1989 and finds that merely because offence under Section 3(2)(V)(a) of the Act, 1989 was registered against the applicant, learned court below rejected the application holding it to be not maintainable in view of the provisions contained under Section 18 of the Act of 1989, without taking into consideration the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Prathvi Raj Chouhan Vs. Union of India and Others 1 . Union of India and Others 1 . Even though, offence under the Act of 1 (2020) 4 SCC 727 4 1989 is registered, where application for grant of anticipatory bail is filed, the Court is required to apply its mind to the relevant provisions of law and considerations as specified by the Supreme Court in the case of Prathvi (supra) and if material on record leads to satisfaction that the complaint does not make out a prima facie case, for applicability of the provisions of the Act of 1989, the bar created under Section 18 of the Act of 1989 shall not apply and in appropriate cases of exceptional nature, benefit of anticipatory bail could be admitted to the applicant. The learned Court below committed patent illegality in mechanically rejecting the bail application. Order of rejection, therefore, cannot be sustained in law and, therefore, set aside. 9. After hearing counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and looking to the material available on record it is evident that in the FIR, caste related allegation is not mentioned, the appellant has already been granted anticipatory bail by the trial Court in the same crime number and after producing caste certificate by the victim, the Section of Special Act has been added in the charge sheet, but there is no change in the nature of offence and charge sheet has already been filed. 10. In such a situation, keeping all the above in view and in the light of above judgment, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the appellant in connection with aforesaid crime number, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-, with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned arresting/investigating officer 5 or the Court concerned, as the case may be, with the following terms and conditions: (i) that the appellant shall make herself/himself available for interrogation/medical test etc. before the concerned investigating officer as and when required; (ii) that the appellant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) that the appellant shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and (iv) that the appellant shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to her/him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H.L. Sahu