1 CGHC010270282026 2026:CGHC:30637 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1751 of 2026 Sanjay Gurunani S/o Late Tarachand Gurunani Aged About 34 Years R/o Vill- Gandhi Chowk Janjgir. P.S. Janjgir District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ... appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. AJAK Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Karan Kumar Baharani, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Judgment on Board 20.07.2026 1. Heard Mr. Karan Kumar Baharani, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Sourabh Sahu, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent / State. 2. This criminal appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the order dated 11.06.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, District - Janjgir- Champa, in Bail Petition No. 554/2026 by which the anticipatory bail application filed by the appellant has been dismissed, as he apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No. 07/2026, registered at Police Station- AJAK Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 69, 115(2) and 296 of the BNS and Sections 3(2)(v-a) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the victim lodged a written complaint on 30.05.2026 alleging that She is in a live-in relationship with the appellant since past 03 years and that the appellant has committed forceful intercourse with her on the grounds of pretext of marriage and thereafter denied the marriage. She has also alleged that in between their time together she had become pregnant and the appellant has given her abortion pills. Acting upon this complaint, an F.I.R. has been registered against the appellant. Hence, this appeal. 4. 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 victim has demanded Rs. 3,00,000/- from the appellant and threatened him that if her demands are not fulfilled she will lodge false FIR against him and his family, 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. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel, opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that as per the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, it appears that the present appellant has committed a grave and heinous offence by repeatedly subjecting the victim, who belongs to a Scheduled Caste community, to sexual exploitation for a prolonged period of about three years under the false promise of marriage. It is submitted that the appellant, despite being fully aware of the caste status of the victim, intentionally induced her to establish physical relations by assuring her that he would marry her and even went to the extent of applying 3 vermilion (sindoor) in her hair parting to falsely portray her as his wife. During the subsistence of their relationship, when the victim conceived, the appellant allegedly compelled her to consume contraceptive pills to prevent childbirth. It is further submitted that when the victim repeatedly insisted upon solemnization of marriage, the appellant deceitfully confined her, obtained her signatures on blank papers under coercive circumstances, and thereafter continued to exploit her sexually. Ultimately, when the victim again demanded marriage, the appellant not only refused to marry her but also intentionally humiliated her by referring to her caste, abused her with caste-related derogatory remarks, assaulted her, attempted to strangulate her, and forcibly drove her out of his house. Learned State Counsel submits that the allegations disclose a systematic course of deception, sexual exploitation, criminal intimidation, physical assault, and commission of offences under the provisions of the BNS as well as the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Considering the serious nature of the allegations, the vulnerability of the victim, the possibility of influencing or intimidating the victim and other prosecution witnesses, and the likelihood of tampering with the evidence, it is prayed that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed and the appellant is not entitled to the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. Hence, there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned trial Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with the appeal. 7. From the perusal of the order passed by the trial Court and considering 4 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 of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, this Court finds that there are specific and prima facie allegations against the appellant that he repeatedly established physical relations with the victim for a considerable period on the false assurance of marriage despite being aware of her caste status. The prosecution further alleges that the appellant falsely represented the victim as his wife by applying sindoor, continued to sexually exploit her for several years, compelled her to consume contraceptive pills when she became pregnant, deceitfully procured her signatures on blank papers, and thereafter refused to marry her while intentionally humiliating her by uttering caste-related abuses, assaulting her physically, and attempting to strangulate her. The allegations, at this stage, disclose a prima facie case involving not only repeated sexual exploitation but also offences attracting the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Considering the gravity and seriousness of the accusations, the manner in which the alleged offences are stated to have been committed, the possibility of the appellant influencing or intimidating the victim and other material witnesses if released on bail, therefore, this Court does not find it a fit case to grant bail to the appellant. 8. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the appellant namely - Sanjay Gurunani, involved in Crime No. 07/2026, registered at Police Station- AJAK Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) for the offence 5 punishable under Sections 69, 115(2) and 296 of the BNS and Sections 3(2)(v-a) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar