1 2026:CGHC:7178 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 24 of 2026 Roshan Gupta S/o Shivkumar Gupta Aged About 21 Years R/o Jamgala, Police Station And Tahsil Lakhanpur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station City Kotwali Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent/State (Cause-title is taken from CIS) For Appellant : Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Avleen Juneja, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 09.02.2026 1. The victim along with her mother appeared through virtual mode from concerned DLSA and raised objection in granting anticipatory bail to the appellant. SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2026.02.11 16:24:57 +0530 2 2. This appeal u/s 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short “the SC/ST Act”) has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 04.12.2025 passed by the Special Judge, (Atrocities) Surguja, Ambikapur in Anticipatory Bail Application No.881/2025 whereby the application filed by the appellant under Section 482 of BNSS apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.899/2025 registered at Police Station City Kotwali Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG) for offence punishable under Sections 69 & 88 of BNS and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been rejected. 3. As per prosecution, the allegations against the Appellant is that he committed forceful sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix, a member of the SC/ST community, repeatedly on the pretext of marriage leading to her pregnancy. It is also alleged that the Appellant had given some pills to the prosecutrix due to which her child was aborted. Based on above, offence was registered against the Appellant. 4. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that the offence under Atrocities Act is not made out against the Appellant. There was a love relationship between the appellant and the prosecutrix and she was a consenting party. The FIR does not disclose that the crime was committed on the basis of caste. Since, the case under Atrocities Act is prima facie not made out as 3 per the FIR, the trial is likely to take some time to be finalized, therefore, the anticipatory bail may be granted to the Appellant. 5. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, opposes the anticipatory bail and submits that the appellant had aborted the child of the prosecutrix. A case of atrocity is made out against the appellant and considering the bar under section 18 of the Atrocities Act, the appellant is not eligible for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, the appeal may be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence collected by the prosecution against the Appellant, without commenting on merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to release the appellant on anticipatory bail. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham