1 2025:CGHC:40279 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1311 of 2025 Ajaykumar S/o Shri Itwari, Aged About 26 Years R/o Ward No. 4, Vivekanand Ward Khongapani, P.S. Jhagrakhand, District M.C.B. (C.G.). ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer P.S. Jhagrakhand, District M.C.B. (C.G.). ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Bhupendra Singh, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Vivek Mishra, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 11/08/2025 1. The victim appeared in person before this Court on 25.07.2025 and recorded ‘no objection’ in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant. 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 09.06.2025 passed by the Special Judge, SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, District Koriya, Baikunthpur (C.G.) in Bail Application No.188/2025, whereby the application filed by the appellant under Section 482 of BNSS apprehending his arrest in SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.08.12 12:01:31 +0530 2 connection with Crime No.71/2025 registered at Police Station Jhagrakhand (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 376 (2)(n) of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been rejected. 3. The case of prosecution, in short, is that from the year 2019 till 01.05.2025, the applicant herein continuously committed sexual intercourse with the victim on the pretext of marriage and when the victim asked for marriage, he denied and abused her verbally. On report being lodged by the victim, offence under the aforesaid Sections has been registered against the appellant. 4. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that the victim is a major lady and on her own free will, physical relations have been developed between them and when the appellant denied to marry her, a false report has been lodged by her. He further submits that the offence under Atrocities Act is not made out. The FIR does not disclose that the crime was committed on the basis of caste. Since, the case under Atrocities Act is prima facie not made out as per the FIR, anticipatory bail should be granted. 5. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, opposes the anticipatory bail. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. On perusal of documents, it seems that the incident is said to have taken place in between 2019 to 01.05.2025. The victim is said to have been major lady and on 25.07.2025, the victim has 3 appeared before this Court and recorded ‘no objection’ in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant. Further, there is a possibility of taking time in completion of investigation and trial. Taking into consideration all these facts, without further commencing on merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case in which the appellant should be extended the benefit of anticipatory bail. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 09.06.2025 is set aside. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the appellant in connection with the aforesaid crime number, shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one local surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned arresting/investigating officer, with the following terms and conditions: (i) that the appellant shall make himself available for interrogation/medical test etc. before the concerned investigating officer as and when required; (ii) that the appellant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) that the appellant shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and (iv) that the appellant shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham