1 2025:CGHC:61506 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2473 of 2025 1 - Shakil Khan S/o Yaad Ali, Aged About 36 Years R/o Village- Baina, Police Station Rajpur, District Kanpar Dehat (U.P.) (Address As Per Aadhar Card Of The Appellant) (Wrongly Mentioned As Lahar Madiyapura, Police Station Lahar, District Kanpur (U.P.) ---- Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House O昀케cer, Police Station Manipur, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) (Wrongly Mentioned As District Raipur (C.G.) ----Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Malay Shrivastava, 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, Sarguja Ambikapur (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 the applicant along with co- accused persons have threatened the girls and giving the blu昀昀 of work in other state, has sold the girls to the persons and forcefully got them Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.12.20 13:19:24 +0530 2 married with the other persons. on the written compliant of the complainant, the FIR bearing Crime No. 184/2025 was registered against the main accused Kabil Ansari and during the investigation the appellant was arrested by the Police on 26/06/2025 and vide order dated 30/07/2025, the bail application of the appellant was rejected and thereafter the charge sheet has been 昀椀led in which the o昀昀ence Under Section 3 (2) (v-क) of the Schedule Caste and the Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was added. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant most respectfully submits that there is no direct allegation against the appellant and only on the basis of the memorandum statement of the main accused Kabil Ansari, the present appellant has been impleaded in the present crime in question. The charge sheet has been 昀椀led and the appellant is in jail since 26/06/2025. 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 3 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 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