1 2025:CGHC:56882 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2218 of 2025 1 - Basant Sahu S/o Ramlal Sahu Aged About 26 Years R/o Kishanpara, Ramayan Chowk, Chantidih, Police Station- Sarkanda, Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station- Sirgitti, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ----Respondents For Appellant : Ms. Kajal Chandra, Advocate. For State : Ms. Nupur Trievedi, P.L. For Objector : Mr. Anchal Kumar Matre, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 24.11.2025 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 06.10.2025 (Annexure A-1) passed by learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Bilaspur (CG) whereby application of the appellant filed under Section 482 of BNSS for grant of anticipatory bail is rejected. 2. Appellant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.11.24 17:25:27 +0530 2 No. 461/2025 registered at Police Station – Sirgitti, Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 69 and 351(2) 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 brother of the appellant is the owner of RL21 Fitness Gym in which the prosecutrix was working as receptionist. In the gym, the prosecutrix meet with the appellant who is the brother of owner of the gym. After the meeting of the appellant with the prosecutrix, the appellant has given assurance of marriage to the prosecutrix and established physical relationship with the prosecutrix and lastly on 16.07.2025, the appellant has developed physical relationship with the prosecutrix. The appellant refused to marry the prosecutrix than the prosecutrix has submitted written report at police station and on the basis of the written report of the prosecutrix, the present FIR was lodge against the appellant for the commission of offence which is punishable under Section 69 and 351(2) of BNS and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the victim herself is a married lady and she is having two children and as per the information of the appellant, the prosecutrix has not given the divorced to her husband till date. 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 3 as alleged under pretext of marriage being an adult lady. 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. 5. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the finding recorded by Learned Special Court that anticipatory bail is not maintainable, is perverse as in view of the judgment passed by the Hon”ble Supreme Court in the matter of Prithviraj Chauhan Vs. Union of India, reported in (2020) 4 SCC 727 in which it is held that the “application of the provisions of the SC/ST act shall only apply after the prima facie satisfaction that an offence under the SC/ST Act has occurred, and consequently the absolute bar imposed on grant of anticipatory bail by virtue of Sections 18 and Section 18A would not apply in case the complainant fails to make a prima facie case for applicability of the provisions of the SC/ST Act. He also relied upon the judgment passed by this court in the matter of Pankaj Singh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh vide order dated 06.05.2022 passed by Hon’ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari were it is held as under:- Even in the Atrocities Act, the Court has a duty to strike a balance and check the possibility of false accusations, if a person is able to show that, prima facie, he has not committed any atrocity against a member of SC and ST and that the allegation was malafide and prima facie false and that prima facie no case was made out, the bar under Section 18 of the Act is not attracted. In this regard, in the matter of Subhash Kashinath 4 Mahajan Vs. State of Maharashtra, the following has been observed: 50. we have no quarrel with the proposition laid down in the said judgment that persons committing offences under the Attrocities act ought not to be granted anticipatory bail in the same manner in which the anticipatory bail is granted in other cases punishable with similar sentence. Still, the question remains whether in cases where there is no prima facie case under the Act, bar under Section 18 operates can be considered. We are unable to read the said judgment as laying down that exclusion is applicable to such situations. If a person is able to show that, prima facie, he has not committed any atrocity against a member of SC and ST and that the allegation was mala fide and prima facie false and that prima faciie no case was made out, we do not see consideration in the mind of this Court in Balothia is that the perpetrators of atrocities should not be granted anticipatory bail so that they may not terrorize the victims. Consistent with this view, it can certainly be said that innocent persons against whom there was no prima facie case or patently false case cannot be subjected to the same treatment as the persons who are prima facie perpetrators of the crime. 53. It is well settled that a statute is to be read in the context of the background and its object. Instead of literal interpretation the court may, in the present context, prefer purposive interpretation to achieve the object of law. Doctrine of proportionality is well known procedural penal provision affecting liberty of citizen must be read consistent with the concept of fairness and reasonableness.” 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the written complaint and the FIR also does not disclose prima facie offence against the appellant that appellant has criminally intimated to the complainant to cause injury, reputation or threat to the complainant. Hence the Special Judge has committed grave illegality in dismissing the bail application only on the ground that Section 18 creates a bar for applying that application under Section 438 of CrPc and not considered the bail application filed by the Appellant on its merits. Hence he prays for release of appellant on anticipatory bail in the interest 5 of justice. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellant. 8. Pursuant to order of this Court, today victim/complainant appeared before this Court through her counsel and raised objection in granting anticipatory bail to the appellant. 9. Heard counsel for respective parties, perused the record with utmost circumspection. 10.Supreme Court in the matter of Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs. Union of India AIR 2020 Supreme Court 1036 held that bar created by Sub section 18 and Section 18A against grant of anticipatory bail in case of atrocity against SC and ST shall not apply unless prima facie is made out. However in case of misuse of provisions Court can quash the cases to prevent misuse on settled parameters. 11.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 and major lady and also considering the fact that there is affair between the appellant and the victim since last two years, moreover the absence of any material indicating that the alleged acts were committed on account of caste considerations, and the appellant appears to have been 6 implicated in a dispute arising out of a strained personal relationship, further considering the order/decision of Prathvi Raj Chauhan (supra) and Pankaj Singh (supra), without commenting anything on merits of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the appellant. 12.Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Impugned rejection order dated 06.10.2025 (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 officer arresting him on executing a personal bond in sum of Rs.10,000/- 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 ofÏcer 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 ofÏcer; (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