1 2025:CGHC:5764 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 227 of 2025 Ashok Kumar Raj S/o Shankar Lal Raj Aged About 52 Years R/o BMY Charoda, Tehsil Bhilai-3, District- Durg (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House Officer Purani Bhilai-3, District- Durg (C.G.) 2 - Dipmala Vaid D/o Late Tukaram Vaid Aged About 47 Years R/o Subhash Chowk, Bhilai-3, Tehsil Patan, District- Durg (C.G.) (Accused) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Purnendra Khichariya, Advocate For State/Respondent No.1 : Ms. Anuradha Jain, Panel Lawyer. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judgment On Board 31/01/2025 1 This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 14(A)(1) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (henceforth referred as “Atrocities Act”) challenging the order dated 19.12.2024, whereby learned Special Judge {SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities)}, Durg (CG) has granted bail to the respondent No.2/accused. 2 2 Facts of the case, in nutshell, are that, appellant as well as respondent No.2, both are Advocates by profession and respondent No.2 is notary also. Respondent No.2 has lodged FIR bearing Crime No.558/2023 for the offence punishable under Sections 376 & 506-B of the IPC against the appellant for her sexual exploitation by appellant, which is pending consideration as Sessions Trial No.87/2023. Subsequently, the appellant lodged FIR bearing Crime No.374/2023 under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2008 (henceforth referred as “I.T. Act”) & Section 3 (8) (10) of the Atrocities Act against respondent No.2 alleging that she has posted obscene contents against the appellant and his family members on social media. On this count, respondent No.2 has been arrested by police and produced before the Special Judge. Thereafter, vide impugned order, learned Special Judge has granted bail to the respondent No.2/accused. 3 Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that appellant as well as respondent No.2, both belong to ‘Scheduled Caste Category’ and he himself admitted that the Atrocities Act is not attracted, despite that, offence of Atrocities Act has been registered against the respondent No.2. Further, since respondent No.2 has posted obscene contents against the appellant and his family members, as such, main allegation is offence under Section 67 of the I.T. Act, which is punishable for 3 years at first instance, despite that, learned Special Judge has granted bail to the respondent No.2/accused, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be rejected. 3 4 Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that the appropriate order may be passed. 5 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, particularly the impugned order. 6 Having considered the aforesaid facts, particularly considering the impugned order and the fact that the appellant & respondent No.2, both belong to ‘Scheduled Caste Category’, as such, provisions of the Atrocities Act are not attracted and the offence under Section 67 of the I.T. Act is punishable for 3 years at first instance, therefore, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the same whereby bail has been granted to the respondent No.2, hence, the instant appeal is dismissed at motion stage. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Rukhsar RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2025.02.04 15:19:35 +0530