1 CGHC010218622026 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1354 of 2026 Lokendra Kumar S/o Shri Onkar Singh Rajput Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Limgaon, Distt. Korba Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Mahila Thana, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Shri Vivek Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Vivek Sharma, Advocate. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL) Order on Board 08/07/2026 1. The instant criminal appeal filed by the appellant under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, the Act, 1989) is for grant of anticipatory bail to appellant, who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 46/2026 registered at Police Station – Mahila Thana, Raigarh (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 69 of the Bhartiya Nyay Samhita, 2023 and Sections 3(2)v) and 3(2)(v-a) of the Act of 1989. 2. As per the prosecution’s case, the prosecutrix/complainant/victim uploaded her bio-data in a social media App, styled as Samajikshadi.com for marriage and on seeing this, the appellant contacted her over mobile on 15.12.2024 and since then they were Digitally signed by ALLENA ANJANI KUMAR Date: 2026.07.08 17:04:36 +0530 2 talking to each other over phone. On 11.07.2025, he took her in a hotel Pink Villa situated at Raigarh and established physical relationship with the prosecutrix and again on 20.02.2026, the appellant had physical relations with her in a hotel room on the false pretext of marriage and thereafter when the prosecutrix became pregnant, the appellant forcibly administered her tablets, which resulted in, her abortion, despite she made resistance in that regard. On 07.05.2026 she came to know through her friend’s Instagram ID that the appellant’s marriage has been fixed with some other girl, the prosecutrix/complainant/victim continued to persuade the appellant for marrying her but the appellant/accused refused her to marry, which has given rise to the complaint by the prosecutrix. Based upon the complaint, offence under the above section has been registered on 10.05..2026 against the present appellant. 3. By order dated 25.05.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge, the bail application filed by the appellant has been rejected against which the appellant has filed this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant/accused has falsely been implicated by the complainant/victim. He further submits that when the appellant got married to another girl, a false report was lodged by the complainant/victim. On these premises, it is prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the appellant may be granted anticipatory bail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the anticipatory bail and submits that the appellant was very well known to the caste of the victim being member of scheduled caste and her statement was recorded under Section 183 of B.N.S.S. wherein she 3 clearly stated that on the pretext of marriage, the appellant has established physical relationship and forcibly administer the tablet and aborted the pregnancy. He further submits that investigation is underway and the victim also raised the objection before the Special Court, therefore, the Appellant may not be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 6. The victim appeared through V.C. provided by the DALSA Raigarh and has raised no objection with regard to grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 8. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the alleged nature and gravity of the offence, this Court does not find fit it appropriate to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the appellant/accused. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed being devoid of merits. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Anjani