1 2025:CGHC:56279 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2292 of 2025 1 - Ashish Kumar Chandra S/o Rameshwar Prasad Chandra Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Talwa, Chhita Pandriya, Police Station Baradwar, District Sakti (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Malkharouda, District Sakti (C.G.) --- Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Ishwar Chandra, Advocate For Respondent-State : Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy. GA Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 19/11/2025 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 filed against impugned rejection order dated 19.09.2025 (Annexure A-1) passed in Bail Application No.863/2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities), District Janjgir-Champa (CG), whereby 2 appellants' application filed under Section 482 of BNSS for grant of anticipatory bail is rejected. 2. Appellant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.158/2025 registered at Police Station – Malkharouda, District Sakti (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 69, 351(2) of BNS and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act of 1989. 3. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that the prosecutrix lodged the complaint on 29-07-2025 with the allegation that she met with the appellant between 26-03-2025 to 09-04-2025 when she went to give examination of Class- 12th and the appellant by saying that he will solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix committed sexual intercourse with her and took the prosecutrix at Bangalore and stayed there for one week, where again the appellant committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix and thereafter at different-different places, the appellant took the prosecutrix and committed the said offence and when the prosecutrix asked about the marriage to the appellant, then the appellant by saying that the prosecutrix is belongs to schedule caste community, therefore he will not solemnized marriage with her, therefore the prosecutrix lodged the complaint before the concerned police station and offence has been registered as mentioned above. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The order passed by the learned court below is bad, illegal and contrary to the law. The appellant and the prosecutrix are having love affair to each other and the prosecutrix is very well aware that the appellant is belongs to another caste and there is 3 no possibility of marriage with both of them and then also the prosecutrix having relation with the appellant. He further submits that the appellant and the prosecutrix are having love affair for very long time and the relation between the prosecutrix and appellants are their own consent and the appellant never committed forcefully sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. The appellant never committed any offence with regard to the caste of the prosecutrix and the allegation leveled against the appellant under atrocities act is not attracted against him. The offence with regard to under Sections 69 & 351 (2) of BNS is also not attracted against the appellant because the prosecutrix is consenting party and there is no any ingredients of the above mentioned section leveled against the appellant. The medical evidence is also not supported the case of prosecution and therefore the offence with regard to the forcefully sexual intercourse is not made out against the appellant. He further submits that he fact of the case itself showing that the prosecutrix went with the appellant at different- different places with her own will and wish and the appellant never forced the prosecutrix and the proseuctrix is major lady and well knowing about the good and bad situation. He further contended that offence of Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, 1989 would not be made out against the appellant. 5. Reliance has been placed on the order passed by this Court in MCRC(A) No.947 of 2014 (Umesh Prasad @ Nandev & Ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh) and CRA No.610 of 2023 (Kamal Prakash Chandra Vs. State of Chhattisgarh), therefore, it is prayed that anticipatory bail to the appellant may be allowed. 4 6. Learned State Counsel opposes the anticipatory bail of the appellant. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 8. Pursuant to order of this Court dated 07.11.2025, victim appeared before this Court along with her brother. On being asked, she raised objection for grant of anticipatory bail to the accused/appellant. Her statement is taken on record. 9. On perusal of the record, it appears that it is undisputed fact that the appellant was very well known that the victim is member of scheduled castes community and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, 1989 specifies that a person who is not a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe commits an offence under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) that is punishable with imprisonment for ten years or more, and does so against a person or property on the ground that such person is a member of a SC or ST, is liable for punishment of life imprisonment and a fine. On perusal of record, it is crystal clear that the victim has trusted upon the appellant that the appellant will solemnized marriage with her. The appellant committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix and thereafter the appellant saying that the prosecutrix belongs to scheduled castes community, so appellant's family will not accept her as their daughter-in-law and expressed disagree to solemnize marriage with the prosecutrix, in considered opinion of this Court prima facie case under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, 1989 would be applicable in this case read with Sections 69, 351(2) of BNS. Therefore, 5 18(a)(2) of the Act, 1989 would be applicable in this case. 10. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the record, this Court finds that the allegations made in the FIR, on their face, disclose commission of offences punishable 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 the accusation, and not to conduct a detailed appreciation of evidence. 11. In view of the specific averments in the FIR attributing intentional insult, humiliation and intimidation to the complainant, who belongs to a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe, the ingredients of the offences under the Act cannot be said to be absent. Consequently, the statutory bar contained in Section 18 and Section 18-A of the SC/ST Act, which expressly prohibit the grant of anticipatory bail where a prima facie case under the Act is made out, becomes operative. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that once the allegations prima facie attract the provisions of the Act, the Court is precluded from exercising jurisdiction for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, as the case is clearly hit by the embargo of Section 18 / 18-A, this Court is not empowered to grant anticipatory bail. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 13. Office is directed to sent a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant