ORDER :

Heard.

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant against order dated 31.08.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocities) Jashpur, C.G., by which, the appellant's application for grant of anticipatory bail has been rejected.

2. The appellant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.105/2020 registered at police station–Bagicha, District : Jashpur (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence under Section 376 (2)(N), 313, 323 & 506 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act of 1989').

3. The prosecutrix lodged an FIR against the present appellant alleging that the appellant entrapped her in his love since last 2 years and since then he has been sexually exploiting her and despite her insistence, finally the accused is not coming forward to marry and on false pretext of marriage, the accused sexually exploited the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix belonged to SC category.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the contents of FIR lodged by the prosecutrix is self-speaking as the details of long standing affair between the appellant and the prosecutrix since last over 2 years and even more only shows that time and again there were disputes, separation, reunion, live-in relationship and finally intervention of family and attempt made not to allow marriage between the appellant and the prosecutrix. He would further submit that FIR itself shows that the prosecutrix still has claimed that either marriage should be arranged between the appellant and the prosecutrix or action should be taken against the appellant. He relied upon decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maheshwar Tigga versus The State of Jharkhand, (2020) 10 SCC 108 and order passed by this Court in the cases of Devnarayan Yadav versus State of Chhattisgarh in CRA No.744 of 2020 decided on 11.12.2020 and Kuldeep Singh versus State of Chhattisgarh in CRA No.670 of 2020 decided on 03.12.2020. Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that in view of law laid down by the Supreme Court in its recent judicial pronouncement in the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs. Union of India & others, 2020(4) SCC 727, present is a case of exceptional nature where notwithstanding bar under Section 18 of the Act of 1989, the appellant is entitled to grant of anticipatory bail.

5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would argue that though the prosecutrix has narrated in the FIR and other statement regarding her affair with the present appellant, sum and substance of the entire allegation is that the appellant right from the beginning had been assuring the prosecutrix that their relation will be brought a logical hand but it could not be translated into action and time and again whenever occasion arose the appellant took back seat behind his family members. All these facts stated by the prosecutrix in the FIR and other statement make out a prima facie case that the sexual exploitation of the prosecutrix on a false pretext of marriage. He would submit that in such a situation, a prima facie case is made out and the bar under Section 18 the Act of 1989 would apply and the application would not be maintainable.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant documents and information disclosed by the learned State Counsel on the basis of material contained in the case diary.

7. The FIR lodged by the prosecutrix is a detailed one and it talks of a very long standing affair between the prosecutrix and the appellant since over 2 years prior to the lodging of the FIR. The appellant and the prosecutrix both are major. Prosecutrix is stated to be approximately 23 years of age. The FIR discloses that the appellant and the prosecutrix were having long affair and even live-in relationship and at one point of time, there was dispute between them and they separated. There are statements made in the FIR that the appellant and the prosecutrix had