1 2025:CGHC:60920 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2482 of 2025 1 - Aman Singh S/o Vijay Kumar Singh Aged About 26 Years R/o Chopara Colony, Bishrampur Police Station Bishrampur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh (Name Of appellants No. 1 Is Wrongly Mentioned In Cause Title Slip Of Order Sheet As Amar Singh) 2 - Vijay Kumar S/o0 Jasan Kumar Aged About 61 Years R/o Chopara Colony, Bishrampur Police Station Bishrampur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh ... appellants(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The S.H.O. Police Station - Gandhinagar District Surguja Chhattisgarh ----Respondents For appellants : Ms. Prachi Diwan, Advocate. For State : Mr. Karan Kumar Bahrani, P.L. For Objector : Mr. Khilendra Sahu, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 15.12.2025 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 filed against impugned rejection order dated 19.11.2025 (Annexure A-1) passed by learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Surguja Ambikapur District Surguja (CG) whereby application of the appellants filed under Section 483 of BNSS for their release on bail is rejected. Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.12.18 14:49:20 +0530 2 2. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that the prosecutrix lodged a written report in police Station Gandhinagar stating that she is a women of tribes community and accused Aman Singh uploaded her obscene photo in Social Media with the intention to outrage her modesty when she complaint about that to the father of Aman Singh, then father of accused Aman Singh abused her. As per the said report, crime was registered against the appellants/accused. The appellants have been arrested by Police of Police Station Gandhi Nagar, District Surguja (C.G.) on 16.011.2025 for the offence punishable under Section 79 of BNS and Section 66 C, 67 I.T. Act and 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST Act. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that it is pertinent to mentioned here that victim is a major lady and performed marriage with the appellant no.1 with her own will and consent on 01.10.2024 in Shri Vishnu Surya Mandir and she left house in the influence of her family member. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the prosecutrix lodged this second FIR before Gandhinagar police station deliberately and with bed intention prosecutrix previously lodged F.I.R. of Rape before the Ganj Police Station Raipur against the appellant no.1, which is registered as crime no. 96/2025 and in this matter appellant no.1 is granted bail by this Hon'ble High Court. When the appellant no.1 released on bail she demanded money from the appellant no.1 when appellant no.1 was refused to give money she given threat to implication in false case. She 3 submits that the prosecutrix has continuously been talking to the appellant's family and demanded the money and also given threat that she would not complete the marriage of the brother of the appellant no.1. When prosecutrix got this information that accused elder brother marriage is fixed and Tilak Ceremony is fixed on 25.11.2025 she deliberately lodged the FIR and also falsely implicated to the father of the appellant no.1 so that marriage of the brother of the appellant no.1 cannot be completed. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in this matter guideline of Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar matter is not followed and deliberately arrested form the appellant's ancestral house village Chainpur (Bihar). The prosecutrix herself sent her photo in mobile of the mother of the appellant no.1 and this false case lodged only for the purpose of interrupting the marriage of the brother of the appellant no.1. The learned Special Court (Atrocities) failed to appreciate the material evidence available on record in its true perspective and therefore, recorded erroneous findings and consequent rejected the bail application of accused/appellant. Hence he prays for release of appellants on bail in the interest of justice. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellants and submits that there is one previous criminal antecedent against appellant No. 1 Aman Kumar Singh in Crime No. 96/2025. 7. Learned counsel for the Objector opposed the bail appeal of the 4 appellants. 8. Heard counsel for respective parties, perused the record with utmost circumspection. 9. Upon perusal of the case diary and material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that the appellants have made out a case for grant of bail. The prosecutrix is admittedly a major and the material placed on record prima facie indicates that she was in a consensual relationship with appellant No.1 and had voluntarily performed marriage with him. The existence of a prior FIR lodged by the prosecutrix against appellant No.1, in which he has already been granted bail by this Court. This is the second case filed against the appellants and the appellants are in custody since 16.01.2025. In these circumstances, and without commenting upon the merits of the case, this Court finds that the learned Special Judge (Atrocities) failed to appreciate the material available on record in its proper perspective. Consequently, the impugned order rejecting the bail application cannot be sustained and the appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 deserves to be and is accordingly allowed, in the interest of justice. 10.Let the appellants be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs.10,000- with one surety each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions : 5 (i) The appellants shall ile an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates ixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The appellants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him/her under Section 269 of BNS, 2023. (iii) In case, the appellants misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of the BNSS, 2023 is issued and the appellants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him/her, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of BNS, 2023. (iv) The appellants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS, 2023. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the appellants is deliberate or without suicient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him/her in accordance with law. 11. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti