Digitally signed by BHOLA B N H AT O H LA NATH KHATAI KHATAI D 20 a 2 te 6 : .02.16

10:43:50 +0530

2026:CGHC:7937 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 284 of 2026 Sanjay Kumar Nishad S/o Sewakram Nishad Aged About 29 Years R/o Mangludeepa, P.S. Kotra Road District- Raigarh (C.G.)

... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Thana In-Charge Mahila Thana, District-

Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Anish Tiwari, Dy. G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

Order On Board

12.02.2026

1. The victim appeared in person before this Court today and objected to the granting of bail to the appellant.

2. This appeal under Section 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 01.01.2026 passed by the Special Judge (under Atrocities Act), Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) whereby the anticipatory bail application filed by the appellant under Section 482 of BNSS in connection with Crime No.47/2025 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 69 of BNS and Section 3 (2)(v) of the SC/ST Act has been rejected.

3. As per the prosecution case, on 22.11.2023, in the afternoon, the applicant/accused took the victim to his home and allegedly committed sexual intercourse against her will by inducing her with a false promise of marriage. The applicant repeatedly established physical relations with the victim by reinforcing his promise to marry her. On 21.12.2025, the applicant again visited the victim's house during her family's absence and made physical relations under the continued pretext of marriage. On written complaint being made in this regard, offence under the aforesaid sections has been registered against the appellant.

4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He submits that the anticipatory 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 Atrocities Act is not prima facie made out against the appellant. He further submits that there was a love affair existed between appellant and victim. Notably, an agreement dated 24.09.2025 was executed between them and both had applied for marriage 3 months prior to the lodging of the FIR. However, as per the note sheet dated 13.10.2025 of the Additional Collector, Raigarh, the said application stood rejected due to the parents not agreeing for the marriage. Therefore, considering all these facts, anticipatory bail should be granted to the appellant.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the said prayer and submits that the appellant had again made physical relations with the victim on 21.12.2025 subsequent to the agreement dated 24.09.2025, therefore, considering the nature of offence, he is not eligible for grant of anticipatory bail.

Hence, the appeal should be dismissed.

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

7. Taking into consideration 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 and also considering the fact that on the basis of a written complaint dated 26.12.2025, FIR has been registered which contains caste-related facts and it has also been mentioned that after the said agreement, the appellant again had physical relations with the victim on 21.12.2025, this Court does not find any error or illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial Court.

8. Accordingly, the present appeal stands dismissed

9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information.

Sd/-

(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)

JUDGE

Khatai