1 2026:CGHC:10740 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 322 of 2026 Sanjay Kumar Yadav S/o Narottam Yadav Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Jairam Nagar, Khaira, P.S. And Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station Akaltara, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Pawan Kumar Kashyap, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Judgment on Board 02.03.2026 1. Heard Mr. Pawan Kumar Kashyap, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Sourabh Sahu, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent / State. 2. In compliance of the Court’s order dated 28.02.2026, the notice was issued to the victim/complainant and the same was served, but neither the victim in person nor any counsel has appeared on behalf of the victim. 3. This criminal appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the order dated 12.01.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, District - Janjgir- Champa, in B.A. No. 21/2026 by which the bail application filed by the appellant has been dismissed, as he apprehends his arrest in RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 connection with Crime No. 658/2025, registered at Police Station- Akaltara, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 64(2)(f), 62, 74 and 351(2) of the BNS and Section 3(2) (v) and 3(2)(ब)(i) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 4. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant made complaint to the concerned Police Station with intend that the appellant has committed to outrage the modesty of the victim, and on the basis of the complaint, the Police has registered the FIR under Sections 64(2)(f), 62, 74, 351(2) of the BNS and Section 3(2)(v), 3(2)(ब)(i) of the SC and ST (P.A.) Act against the appellant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. It is further submitted that the appellant is a teacher and has not outraged the modesty of victim nor committed any aforesaid offence. It is further submitted that before registration of the FIR, there was dispute in between the parties regarding previous enmity, due to this, the complainant has made false complaint against the appellant without any sufficient reason, and hence, the impugned order deserves to be set aside, and the appellant is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that as per the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, it appears that the victim studies in the 12th grade at the Government Higher Secondary School, Amora, and the appellant happens to be their school's sports in-charge. The 3 appellant took the more than approximately 60-65 students from the school to the Parsahinala Government School for an NSS camp from December 20, 2025, to December 26, 2025. On December 23, 2025, at around 11:00 a.m., the appellant told the victim to go and see if there was water in the bathroom, and when the victim went away to check, he started following her, and pushed her inside the bathroom and gagged with his hand, and thereafter he tried to outrage the modesty of the victim, and when a friend of victim came calling out to her, the applicant left the victim and immediately went outside, by theatening her on dire consequences for not telling anyone about the incident, thereafter the victim told her fried about the incident and her fried told the same to her mother. Hence, there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned trial Court. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with the appeal. 8. From the perusal of the order passed by the trial Court and considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon careful scrutiny of the material placed on record, particularly the contentions highlighted by the learned State counsel on the basis of the statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, this Court finds that the circumstances in which the alleged offence is stated to have been committed are grave and cannot be lightly brushed aside at this stage. It is alleged that the appellant, while functioning as the Sports In-charge of the school and being entrusted with the supervision, safety, and welfare of students during an NSS camp held from 20.12.2025 to 26.12.2025, misused his official position and 4 authority. During the course of the camp, wherein approximately 60–65 students from Classes IX to XII had participated, the victim was allegedly directed by him on 23.12.2025 at about 11:00 a.m. to verify the availability of water in the bathroom facility, under this pretext, the victim was followed into the bathroom by the appellant, thereby isolating her from the group in a secluded space, and thereafter, she was subjected to sexual assault by the appellant. The occurrence is stated to have been interrupted only upon the arrival of her friend, and it is further alleged that threats of dire consequences were extended to ensure silence. The victim has also alleged that similar acts of inappropriate conduct had taken place on earlier occasions during sports-related visits, accompanied by intimidation, thereby suggesting a continuing pattern of misconduct. In such circumstances, this Court does not find it a fit case to grant bail to the appellant. 9. Accordingly, the bail application of the appellant namely - Sanjay Kumar Yadav, involved in Crime No. 658/2025, registered at Police Station- Akaltara, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 64(2)(f), 62, 74 and 351(2) of the BNS and Section 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(ब)(i) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, ‘the SC/ST Act’), is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar