1 2025:CGHC:11774 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 4 of 2025 1 - Chandrahas Tiwari S/o Lt. Basant Tiwari Aged About 34 Years Village Bamhu, Khairadaganiya, Sipat, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Station House OfÏcer, P.S. Ajak, Korba, Chhattisgarh ----Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Jitendra Pali, Adv, along with Ms. Sonia Kuldeep, Adv. For State : Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy. G.A. For Objector : Mr. Ashutosh Pandey, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 10.03.2025 Heard. 1. This criminal appeal filed under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for short, 'Act of 1989') against order dated 02.12.2024 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Korba, District Korba (CG) whereby an application filed by the appellant under Section Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.03.20 16:20:42 +0530 2 482 of Bharatiay Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been dismissed. 2. Appellant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.173/2024 registered at Police Station –Korba, District Korba, (CG), for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 506, 509, 354, 452 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(R), 3(1)(S) and 3(5)(VA) of the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 23.03.2024 complainant lodged a written report mentioning therein that the complainant and appellant worked in the same department, which led to them becoming acquainted and physical relation developed between them. However, the complainant alleged that he was involved with the other women and when she confronted him, the appellant allegedly used abusive and filthy language to her and also by her caste. Based on written complaint, instant crime is registered against appellant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant and complainant were having love affair while working in the same department. The appellant proposed marriage to the complainant, but she declined. Subsequently, the appellant married someone chosen by his family, which reportedly infuriated the complainant, She then began threatening the appellant, stating that she would tarnish his reputation. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, appellant may be 3 enlarged on anticipatory. 5. Learned State Counsel opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for appellant and submits that in FIR allegation of abusing complainant is mentioned. Hence, in view of bar under Section 18 of the Act of 1989 anticipatory bail application is not maintainable. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the objector opposes the anticipatory bail application of the appellant. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. Section 18(2) of SC/ST Act provides that the provision of section 438 of the Code shall not apply to a case under this Act, notwithstanding any judgment or order or direction of any Court. 9. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation, submissions of learned counsel for the parties as well as learned counsel for complainant, this Court finds it appropriate that as per prosecution story, prima facie case is made out against the appellant under Sections 294, 506, 509, 354, 452 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(R), 3(1)(S) and 3(5)(VA) of the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, therefore, the instant anticipatory bail application filed by the appellant under Section 14A(2) of Act 1989 is dismissed. 10. In the event of dismissal of anticipatory bail, learned counsel for the appellant prays for a direction to the concerned trial Court 4 that an application for regular bail to be filed upon his surrender and the same be decided on the same day. 11. As prayed, in the event appellant after his surrender, files regular bail application, same may be decided preferably on the same day in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. 12. It is made clear that any observations affecting merits of the case are purely for the purpose of deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not be construed as an expression of final observation in the proceedings before Trial Court. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti