1 2025:CGHC:55963 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2131 of 2025 1 - Ritik Sahu Alias Pintu S/o Jagdish Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Bhadi Patelpara, Thana And Tehsil Baikunthpur, District Korea C.G. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O., P.S.- A J A K, Baikunthpur, District Korea C.G. ----Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate. For State : Mr. Karan Baharani, P.L. For Objector : Mr. Shrikant Kaushik, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 17.11.2025 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 01.10.2025 (Annexure A-1) passed by learned Special Judge, SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act), Baikunthpur, District Korea (CG) whereby application of the appellant filed under Section 482 of BNSS for grant of anticipatory bail is rejected. 2 2. Appellant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 07/2025 registered at Police Station – AJAK, S.H.O. Baikunthpur, District Korea (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 64 and 69 of B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(v) of S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Act. 3. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that the prosecutrix is not having good relationship with her husband resides separately in a rented house and where about 7 months back the applicant giving false assurance of marriage made physical relationship with her of which she made a report at SC & ST Welfare police station of which case is pending before court. During pendency of the said case at the time of evidence the applicant on 27.05.2025 written on stamp that he will marry the prosecutrix and thereafter continuously approaching the house of prosecutrix made sexual relations. On 12.09.2025 at 8.30 pm again on pretext of marriage committed rape forcefully of which the information was given by the prosecutrix to her friend and husband. Thereafter on 18.09.2025 when her husband and children came to the house of prosecutrix in morning 8.30 am again the applicant reached there and started forcing her and hearing the noise the neighbours reached to the place. When the prosecutrix and her husband asked the applicant when he will marry prosecutrix he stated that he belongs to Sahu Caste and 3 cannot marry girl belonging to Uraon caste and since the prosecutrix had sent him to jail he will only make physical relations but will not marry her. The prosecutrix reported the said incident to police in writing on 19.09.2025 as such offences under section 64, 69 of BNS and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was registered at SC & ST Welfare Police Station, Baikunthpur. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the victim herself is a married lady and there is no question for alluring her on the pretext of marriage. The statement of the prosecution witnesses does not disclose the commission of rape as alleged under pretext of marriage being an adult lady and it is improbable that once she had made complaint of rape and case is pending then she again allowed the applicant to commit rape with her consent on pretext of marriage. The allegation under the statement of the prosecutrix does not reveal that offence has been committed as she belongs to Schedule Caste nor the complaint makes out any such case. The appellant has been falsely implicated in this case, he has not committed any offence as alleged against hime, hence, he may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon order/decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in SLP (Crl) No.11154/2025 (Sidhan @ Sidharathan versus State of 4 Kerala & Anr). 5. Learned State Counsel opposes the anticipatory bail of the appellants. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. Pursuant to order of this Court, today victim/complainant appeared before this Court through virtual mode and raised objection in granting anticipatory bail to the appellants. 8. Relevant portion/para of the order/decision of Sidhan @ Sidharathan (supra) reads as under: “4. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of the wound certificate which is produced alongwith the petition which discloses that the victim himself was under alcoholic influence and the alleged injuries sustained by him is simple in nature, we are of the view that petitioner would be eligible for grant of the relief sought for. It is rather surprising to note that though there was no allegation of any caste slur made by the complainant in his complaint, the jurisdictional police seems to have acted in zeal to incorporate the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ("the Act") which that prima facie swayed in the mind of the High Court to reject the anticipatory bail in view of the embargo placed under Section 18 of the Act. However, the complaint filed at the first 5 instance by the injured would reveal that he not even whispered about any such caste slur made by petitioner accused. Hence, we are inclined to accept the contentions raised in this petition. Hence, the petition is allowed and petitioner is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail by jurisdictional Investigating Officer on such terms and conditions as he deems fit.” 9. Considering entire facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation, submissions of counsel for the parties, contents of statement of complainant/victim, in which, victim has only made general allegation against the appellant and the prosecutrix is a married woman, the pendency of an earlier case between the parties on similar allegations, and the absence of any material indicating that the alleged acts were committed on account of caste considerations, and the appellant appears to have been implicated in a dispute arising out of a strained personal relationship, further considering the order/decision of Sidhan @ Sidharathan (supra), without commenting anything on merits of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the appellant. 10.Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Impugned rejection order dated 01.10.2025 (Annexure A-1) is set aside and it is directed that in event of arrest of appellant in connection with the crime in question, he shall be released on bail by the 6 officer arresting him on executing a personal bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Arresting Officer. Appellant shall also abide by following conditions : (i) that appellants shall make themselves available for interrogation before the investigating officer as and when required; (ii) that appellants shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) that appellants shall not act, in any manner, which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and (iv) that appellant shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to her by the said Court till disposal of the trial. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti