1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2500 of 2025 Aman Singh S/o Late Santosh Singh Aged About 21 Years Occupation- Student, Residence Of Namna Kala, Near Power House, Tiwari Mohalla Ambikapur P.S. Gandhinagar Tahsil- Ambikapur District- Sarguja (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer P.S. Gandhinagar, District- Sarguja (C.G.) ... Respondent/State For Appellant : Mr. Apoorva Tripathi , Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Binu Sharma, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 12.01.2026 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 15.11.2025 passed by the Special Judge, (Atrocities) Surguja, District Ambikapur in Bail Application No.789/2025 whereby the SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2026.01.13 11:07:52 +0530 2 application filed by the appellant under Section 482 of BNSS apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.614/2024 registered at Police Station Gandhinagar for offence punishable under Sections 140(2), 296, 351(3) & 3(5) of BNS and Section 3(2)(va) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been rejected. 3. The prosecution's case, in short, is that on 18.10.2024, the appellant forcibly made the victim, who is a member of the SC/ST community, sit in his car and abducted her, thereby committed the offence. Based on the victim's report, offence has been registered against the appellant under the aforesaid Sections. 4. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He further submits that the appellant had given some money to the victim and when he asked for its return, the victim lodged a false report against him. The other co-accused has already been granted benefit of bail. Hence, it is prayed that the appeal may be allowed and anticipatory bail may be granted to the appellant. 5. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the State opposes the anticipatory bail. She further submits that the appellant is absconded. The case of the other co-accused, who is also a member of the SC/ST community and was granted bail by 3 the Trial Court, is different from the appellant's case. Hence, looking to the nature of offence, the appeal may be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence collected by the prosecution against the appellant, without commenting on merits of the case, at this stage, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the appellant. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham