The court reinforced that serious allegations under special statutes necessitate thorough evaluation, particularly concerning consent and caste factors.

Order On Board

06/08/2025

1. Despite service of notice, neither the victim nor any representative on her behalf has appeared.

2. This appeal u/s 14-A(2) of the 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 09.07.2025 passed by the Special Sessions Judge, SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Ambikapur, District – Sarguja (C.G.) in B.A. No.457/2025 whereby the application filed by the appellant under Section 482 of BNSS apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.239/2025 registered at Police Station Sitapur, District - Sarguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 69 & 89 of BNS and Section 3(2)(v) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been rejected.

3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 22.06.2025, the prosecutrix lodged a report stating that the appellant came into acquaintance with her about six years ago and, between 10.01.2020 and 17.06.2025, the appellant allured her, knowing she belonged to a Scheduled tribe, and established physical relations with her on multiple occasions on the false pretext of marriage, without her free consent. Based on this, an offence has been registered against the present appellant.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the prosecutrix is major, she has voluntarily accompanied the applicant and she was a consenting party, therefore, no offence is made out against the appellant. He further submits that the bail application has been rejected by the trial Court on the ground that there is a bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act. However, the case under the Atrocities Act is not prima facie made out as there is no averment regarding the caste in the FIR as well as in the statement and therefore, anticipatory bail should be granted to the appellant. He placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Hitendra @ Chhotu Pandram vs. State of M.P. and Anr., (MCRC No. 34387/2024) decided on 02.04.2025 and also on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dr. Dhruvaram Multidhar Sonar vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. , (2019)

18 SCC 191.

5. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, opposing the anticipatory bail, submits that the appellant has forcibly committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix on the false pretext of marriage, due to which she became pregnant, and later her pregnancy was aborted. Therefore, considering the gravity of the offence and the bar under Section 18 of the Atrocities Act, the appellant is not entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail, and hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

7. Looking to the material available on record and the perusal of the order impugned, it is evident that the appellant Knowing the prosecutrix belongs to the Scheduled tribe lured her into marriage and had a physical relation with her, therefore, the rejection of the anticipatory bail by the trial Court on that basis is found to be proper. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the nature and gravity of offence and the material collected and available on record against the appellant, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial Court.

8. Accordingly, the present appeal for grant of anticipatory bail stands dismissed.