1 2025:CGHC:35208 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1224 of 2025 1 - Sarit Manjhi S/o Ashok Manjhi Aged About 35 Years R/o Gidhli Police Station Basna, Tehsil Saraipali, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Basna, Tahsil Saraipali, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent CRA No. 1226 of 2025 1 - Sabit Manjhi S/o Ashok Manjhi Aged About 40 Years R/o Gidhli Police Station- Basna Tehsil- Saraipali, District- Mahasamund (C.G.). ---Appellant Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Basna, Tahsil Saraipali District Mahasamund (C.G.). --- Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate with Mr. Rishabh Gupta, Advocate For State : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 22 / 07 / 2025 Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.07.23 10:16:05 +0530 2 1. The victim along with her husband, appeared through video conferencing from the concerned DLSA and raised her objection to grant bail to the appellants. 2. CRA No. 1224 of 2025 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, Mahasamund, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) in Bail Application No. 363/2025 whereby the anticipatory bail application filed by the appellant under Section 482 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 has been rejected. 3. Appellant - Sarit Manjhi is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.199/2025, registered at Police Station – Basna, District-Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 69, 115(2) and 3(5) 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'). 4. CRA No.1226 of 2025 is filed under Section 14-A(2) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for grant of regular bail to the appellant as he is arrested in connection with Crime No. 199/2025 registered at police station Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 69, 115(2) and 3(5) 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'). 5. By order dated 17.06.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge in Crime No. 199/2025, the bail application filed by the appellant Sabit Manjhi has been rejected against which the appellant has filed CRA No. 1226/2025. 3 6. As per the case of the prosecution, the victim filed a written report in the police station Basna stating therein that appellant Sabit Manjhi took her to Chhuipali Tiwari Dhaba lodge, saying that he would marry her and would make her his second wife, and had physical relationships with her several times between 16.03.2025 to 05.05.2025. On 19.05.2025, when the victim went to the house of applicants (Sabit Manjhi and Sarit Manjhi), they refused to recognise her and assaulted her with hands and fists, causing injuries on her left hand, head back and waist. Based on this, offence has been registered against the present appellants. 7. In CRA No. 1226/2025, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant (Sabit Manjhi) submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that the victim is about 30-year-old married lady having 2 children. From the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., corresponding to Section 183 of BNSS, it is clear that the victim is a consenting party. He lastly submits that charge sheet has been filed, the appellant is in jail since 20.05.2025, and the trial is likely to take considerable time to be finalized, therefore, it is prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the appellant may be released on regular bail. He placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of XXXX vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another reported in (2024) 3 SCC 496. 8. In CRA No. 1224/2025, learned counsel appearing for the appellant (Sarit Manjhi, brother of Sabit Manjhi) submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that charge sheet has been filed and as per the charge sheet since the 4 offence under Section 323 of IPC corresponding Section 115(2) is bailable, appellant Sarit Manjhi was arrested and granted bail, thereafter, Section 3(2)(v) of Atrocities Act has been added, therefore, since the appellant Sarit Manjhi is absconding a supplementary charge sheet has been filed against him. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, appellant Sarit Manjhi may be granted anticipatory bail. 9. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the State opposes the bail application and submits that there is sufficient evidence available on record against the Appellants. The charge-sheet has been filed, therefore, at this stage, the Appellants may not be granted bail. 10.I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 11.Considering the circumstances of the case and the fact that the prosecutrix is a 30 years old major and married lady, further looking to the statement of prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. corresponding Section 183 of BNSS, and also considering the fact that charge sheet has already been filed, appellant- Sabit Manjhi is in jail since 20.05.2025 and the fact that the trial is likely to take some time to be finalized, without further commenting on other merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it would be appropriate to release appellant – Sabit Manjhi on bail. 12.Accordingly, the CRA No. 1226/2025 is allowed and the impugned order dated 17.06.2025 passed by the learned Trial Court is set-aside. 13.It is directed that appellant (Sabit Manjhi) shall be released on bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 5 25,000/- with one solvent surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the said Court as and when directed. 14. 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 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. 15. After hearing counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and looking to the 1 (2020) 4 SCC 727 6 material available on record, in the light of above judgments, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to appellant – Sarit Manjhi. Accordingly, the CRA No. 1224/2025 is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest of appellant – Sarit Manjhi 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 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