1 2025:CGHC:57710 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2398 of 2025 1 - Deepak Gupta S/o Bhagirathi Gupta Aged About 19 Years Caste- Kolta, R/o Village- Kokiyakhar, Police Chowki- Kotba, Police Station- Bagbahar, District Jashpur C.G. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House O+cer, Police Station- Bagbahar, District Jashpur C.G. ----Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Saxena, Advocate For State : Ms. Priya Sharma, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 27.11.2025 Heard. 1. This criminal appeal 3led under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for short, 'Act of 1989') against order dated 05.05.2025 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jashpur (CG) whereby an application 3led by the appellant under Section 483 of Bharatiay Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been dismissed. 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 27.03.2024 the complainant Nandkumar Paikra given a merg intimation before the Police Chowki, Kotba to the e@ect that his daughter Bhuneshwari Paikra, aged about 17 years is lying dead near Arhar Goda. On the basis of said information, the merg No. 27/2024 was registered and thereafter the dead body was sent for postmortem, then an FIR bearing Crime No. 68/2024 was registered at Police Station, Bagbahar against unknown person for the o@ence under Section 302 of IPC. During the investigation, the applicant/accused was taken into custody and after questioning to him, he told about having a love a@air with the deceased Bhuneshwari and having physical relations with her several times and after she became pregnant, there was a 3ght between them and she got a miscarriage after eating herbs as per the instructions of the accused and on 20.03.2024, when she was fed Selphas and became unconscious, he has pressed her nose and mouth with a towel and the towel was kept pressed in the stone of Mudatongri and towel has been recovered, on the indication of the applicant/accused. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has not killed the deceased and only on the basis of suspicion, the appellant has been roped in this case. He further submits that now the material prosecution witnesses including complainant have been examined before the trial Court, who 3 have not supported the case of the prosecution and they turned hostile. The prosecution witnesses have denied about love a@air and physical relation between the appellant and deceased. He further submits that the appellant has been roped in this case without any material and without any eye witness of the incident. He further submits that as per prosecution story itself no rape has been done or attempt has been made by the applicant, therefore the alleged o@ence has not been made out. He further submits that investigation in the matter has been completed and charge-sheet has already been 3led; hence, no further custodial interrogation of the appellant is required. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, appellant may be enlarged on bail. 4. Learned State Counsel submits that notice has already been served to father of the deceased/victim, however none for the complainant. Learned State Counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and states that there is a prima facie case made out against the appellant. 5. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the record, this Court 3nds that the allegations made in the FIR, on their face, disclose commission of o@ences punishable under Section 302 of IPC and under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. At this stage, the Court is required to examine only the prima facie nature of 4 the accusation, and not to conduct a detailed appreciation of evidence. 6. On perusal of the case diary and the material collected during investigation, this Court 3nds that the allegations against the appellant are of a serious nature. The prosecution case categorically reEects that the applicant/accused was in a love a@air with the deceased Bhuneshwari and had physical relations with her on several occasions, and that after she became pregnant, a dispute arose between them and the deceased su@ered a miscarriage after consuming certain herbs allegedly given at his instance. On 20.03.2024, after administering Selphas to her and causing her to become unconscious, he pressed her nose and mouth with a towel, and that the said towel, which he claimed to have left wedged under a stone at Mudatongri, was subsequently recovered at his instance. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the allegations levelled in the FIR, coupled with the materials unearthed during investigation, clearly disclose a prima facie case attracting the provisions of Section 302 IPC and the o@ences under the Act of 1989. At this stage, the Court is not required to undertake a detailed scrutiny of evidence, and the hostile stance of certain witnesses cannot be a ground to negate the serious incriminating circumstances emerging against the appellant. Having regard to the gravity of the 5 o@ence, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, and the statutory bar on grant of bail under the SC/ST Act, no case is made out for interfering with the order of the learned Sessions Judge. Consequently, the bail appeal 3led under Section 14-A(2) of the Act of 1989 is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti