1 2025:CGHC:61507 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2578 of 2025 1 - Imran Ansari S/o Shamim Ansari Aged About 25 Years R/o Village- Bahopudar, Police Station Ranka, District- Gadhwa (Jharkhand), At Present R/o Mayapur, Ambikapur, Rental House Of Manoj Gupta, District- Sarguja C.G. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station Houe O昀케cer, Police Station- Manipur, District Sarguja C.G. ----Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate. For State : Ms. Priya Sharma, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 17.12.2025 1. This appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for short, 'Act of 1989’ is 昀椀led against impugned rejection order dated 17.10.2025 (Annexure A-1) passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Manipur District Sarguja (CG) whereby application of the appellant 昀椀led under Section 483 of BNSS for his release on bail is rejected. 2. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 21.06.2025 the complainant made a complaint before the concerned police station by stating that Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.12.20 13:19:20 +0530 2 her cousin sister i.e. victim was residing in Ambikapur and was working in Ambikapur Hotel. On 19.06.2025, she received a call bearing mobile No. 8435467587 for kidnapping of her cousin sister and as per call they demanded Rs. One lakh for release the same. After receiving the said information, the concerned police investigated the matter and arrested the co-accused Kabil Ansari, Heena Ansari and Rameshwari Sonwani and as per their statement, the concerned police found the victim from the possession of one co-accused Sumit Rathore. That, thereafter, the concerned police recorded the statement of victim and as per statement, victim stated that in the month of April-2025, she met with the present appellant due to which a love a昀昀air established between both of them and physical relationship has also been done, thus she got pregnant and when she pressurized to marry, the co- accused Kabil Ansari and Heena Ansari contacted her and gave medicine for abortion and also took her to Uttar Pradesh for labor work and sold with the co-accused Sumit Rathore. After recording the statement of victim, the concerned police added the some relevant sections against the present appellant and co-accused persons and arrested them. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant most respectfully submits that there is no any speci昀椀c allegation against the present appellant as without consent of the present appellant, the co-accused took away the victim to Uttar Pradesh and committed crime. Thus, the aforesaid o昀昀ences are not made out against the present appellant. It is an admitted fact that as per allegation made by the victim, the present appellant and victim were love a昀昀air and due to which after consent, the physical relationship were done. It is an also admitted fact that on the date of 3 incident, the victim was a major and educated girl and due to consent, the physical relationship was done, thus as per the ingredients of sexual o昀昀ences, the o昀昀ences are not made out against the present appellant at this stage. As per complaint made by the complainant, she did not disclose the name of present appellant in the aforesaid crime and she has only made complaint against the co-accused persons for crime of kidnapping, whereas, the concerned police without proper investigated the matter, due to love a昀昀airs between present appellant and victim, registered FIR and has 昀椀led the challan against him. The prosecution case, being founded on a false and coerced version, is liable to be rejected. Therefore, learned counsel prays that the appeal 昀椀led by the appellant be allowed and the appellant be granted appropriate relief, as the continuation of proceedings would amount to gross abuse of the process of law. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the appeal and submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge is legal, proper and in accordance with law. It is contended that the appellant is involved in a serious and heinous o昀昀ence relating to tra昀케cking and forced marriage of girls belonging to the Scheduled Caste, which attracts the stringent provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The role of the appellant has clearly surfaced during investigation and his involvement is re昀氀ected from the statements of witnesses as well as the memorandum statement of the co-accused, recorded in accordance with law. Therefore the appellant does not deserve the discretionary relief of bail. 5. Heard counsel for respective parties, perused the record with utmost 4 circumspection. 6. Upon careful perusal of the case diary, the FIR and the material collected during investigation, this Court 昀椀nds that the allegations against the appellant disclose his active involvement in a grave and heinous o昀昀ence relating to tra昀케cking and sale of a tribal girl on the pretext of providing employment, which attracts the stringent provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The nature of accusations, the manner in which the o昀昀ence is alleged to have been committed, and the vulnerability of the victim prima facie establish the seriousness of the crime and its adverse impact on society. In view of the gravity of the o昀昀ence, the severity of punishment prescribed, and the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellant is not entitled to the discretionary relief of bail at this stage. Accordingly, the bail application/appeal is rejected. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti