1 2025:CGHC:55962 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2136 of 2025 1 - Abid S/o Shabir Aged About 27 Years R/o Mehalvala, P.S. Kithoud District- Merath (U.P.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Police Station Kondagaon, District- Kondagaon (C.G.) ----Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Adv. For State : Mr. Vivek Sharma, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 17.11.2025 Heard. 1. This criminal appeal filed under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for short, 'Act of 1989') against order dated 30.09.2025 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Kondagaon, District Kondagaon (CG) whereby an application filed by the appellant under Section 483 of Bharatiay Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 2 has been dismissed. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the victim lodged an FIR against the present appellant and the co-accused, alleging that on 29.06.2025, two outsiders selling gas stove came near the victim’s house and seeing her alone, both of them entered the house. Despite her refusal, the appellants forcibly attempted to sexually assault and disrobe her with an intention to commit rape. Pursuant to the said report, the police registered a case against the appellant, commenced investigation and subsequently arrested the appellant during the course of investigation. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the alleged caste- related abuses were not made in any public view or with intent to humiliate the complainant on the basis of her caste, hence the essential ingredients of the offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are not attracted. He further submits that as per prosecution story itself no rape has been done or attempt has been made by the applicant, therefore the alleged offence has not been made out. He further submits that investigation in the matter has been completed and charge-sheet has already been filed; hence, no further custodial interrogation of the appellant is required. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, appellant may be enlarged on bail. 4. Learned State Counsel opposes the submissions made by 3 learned counsel for appellant and submits that the allegation is that the appellant forcibly attempted to sexually assault and disrobe her with an intention to commit rape. Hence, the State Counsel oppose the prayer for grant of bail and stated that there is a prima facie case made out against the appellant under the provisions of the Act, 1989. 5. In pursuance of notice issued on 16.10.2025, the victim along with her father appeared before this Court through DLSA Kondagaon and opposes the bail application of the appellant. 6. 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. 7. On perusal of the case diary and the material collected during investigation, this Court finds that the allegations against the appellant are of a serious nature. The prosecution case categorically reflects that the appellant, along with the co- accused were selling gas stove and came near the house of the victim and they entered the house of the victim in her solitary presence and forcibly attempted to disrobe and sexually assault her with the intent to commit rape. The statements of the victim 4 as well as the supporting material prima facie disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences, including those under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Considering the gravity of the accusations, the vulnerability of the victim, and the statutory restrictions under the Act of 1989, this Court does not find any justifiable ground to extend the benefit of bail. Consequently, the criminal appeal preferred under Section 14-A(2) of the Act of 1989 is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti