1 2025:CGHC:43014 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1617 of 2025 1 - Kishan Kumar S/o Sanjay Kumar Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Jarhi, Police Station Bhatgaon, Tahsil Pratappur District - Surajpur (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The S.H.O. Police Station Gandhinagar District - Surajpur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Rohitashva Singh, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Vivek Sharma, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 25.08.2025 1. The victim appeared before this Court today and expressed her no-objection in granting bail to the appellant. 2. This appeal under Section 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 31.07.2025 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Surguja, Ambikapur (C.G.) whereby the anticipatory bail application filed by the appellant under Section 482 of BNSS in connection with Crime No.249/2025 registered at Police Station Gandhinagar, District Surguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2025.08.26 11:19:04 +0530 2 under Sections 64, 351 of BNS and Sections 3 (2)(v), 3(1)(w-ii) of the SC/ST Act has been rejected. 3. As per the prosecution case, on 29.03.2025, the appellant is alleged to have committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix belonging to ST community. On report being lodged in this regard, offence under the aforesaid sections has been registered against the appellant. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He submits that there is a delay in lodging the FIR and charge sheet has not been filed. He further submits that there is no allegation of Atrocities Act against the appellant in the FIR and therefore anticipatory bail should be granted to the appellant. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the said prayer and submits that there is a case of rape made out against the appellant, therefore, considering the nature of offence, he is not eligible for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, the appeal should be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. 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 error or illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. 8. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Khatai