1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1257 of 2025 Bhupendra Kumar Yadav S/o Shyamlal Yadav Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Saipara, Behind Sai College Digma, P.S. Gandhinagar, District- Sarguja (C.G.) (Accused) ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station- Gandhinagar, District- Sarguja (C.G.) ... Respondent/State For Appellant : Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Priya Sharma, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 17.07.2025 1. The victim appeared through virtual mode from concerned DLSA 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 SC/ST Act”) has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 13.06.2025 passed by the Special Judge, (Atrocities) Surguja, Ambikapur (C.G.) in Bail Application No. unregistered/2025 whereby the application filed by the appellant under Section 482 of BNSS apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.07.18 18:36:33 +0530 2 No.228/2025 registered at Police Station Gandhinagar, District Surguja (CG) for offence punishable under Sections 69 of BNS and Section 3(1)(w)(II) & 3 (2)(v) of the SC/ST Act has been rejected. 3. The case of prosecution in short is that the applicant/accused allegedly having physical relations with a woman/victim belonging to the scheduled tribe for two years without her consent by luring her with the promise of marriage. In this case, prima facie evidence shows that the applicant has also committed a crime under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. On the report of the victim, offence has been registered against the appellant. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant argues that the appellant has been falsely implicated, citing a prior love relationship with the victim that ended when he refused to marry her, leading to blackmail and a false report. The counsel highlights an unnatural delay in lodging the FIR, notes the victim's majority status, and mentions counseling sessions between the two. Additionally, the appellant's reputation in the village and potential impact on his future marriage are emphasized as reasons to consider his case. 5. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, opposes the anticipatory bail and submits that the victim in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. supported the case of prosecution. She further submits that the appellant told 3 the victim that his parents would not allow him to marry her because she belongs to a Scheduled Tribe. A case of atrocity is made out against the appellant. Further, due to sexual intercourse, the victim got pregnant. Hence, it is prayed that the appellant may not be granted anticipatory bail and the appeal should be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Looking to the material available on record and on perusal of the impugned order, Prima facie involvement of the applicant in the alleged offence is evident. Upon perusal of the material available on record, there appears to be no prima facie ground to establish that no offence under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out against the applicant, therefore, the rejection of the anticipatory bail by the Trial Court is found to be proper. 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 Shubham