2025:CGHC:55963 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2131 of 2025

1 - Ritik Sahu Alias Pintu S/o Jagdish Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Bhadi Patelpara, Thana And Tehsil Baikunthpur, District Korea C.G.

... Appellant(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O., P.S.- A J A K, Baikunthpur, District Korea C.G. ----Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate.

For State : Mr. Karan Baharani, P.L.

For Objector : Mr. Shrikant Kaushik, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge

Order on Board

17.11.2025

1. This appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Caste &

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for short, 'Act of 1989') is filed against impugned rejection order dated 01.10.2025 (Annexure A-1) passed by learned Special Judge, SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act), Baikunthpur, District Korea (CG) whereby application of the appellant filed under Section 482 of BNSS for grant of anticipatory bail is rejected.

2. Appellant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 07/2025 registered at Police Station – AJAK, S.H.O. Baikunthpur, District Korea (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 64 and 69 of B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(v) of S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Act.

3. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that the prosecutrix is not having good relationship with her husband resides separately in a rented house and where about 7 months back the applicant giving false assurance of marriage made physical relationship with her of which she made a report at SC & ST Welfare police station of which case is pending before court. During pendency of the said case at the time of evidence the applicant on 27.05.2025 written on stamp that he will marry the prosecutrix and thereafter continuously approaching the house of prosecutrix made sexual relations. On 12.09.2025 at 8.30 pm again on pretext of marriage committed rape forcefully of which the information was given by the prosecutrix to her friend and husband. Thereafter on 18.09.2025 when her husband and children came to the house of prosecutrix in morning 8.30 am again the applicant reached there and started forcing her and hearing the noise the neighbours reached to the place. When the prosecutrix and her husband asked the applicant when he will marry prosecutrix he stated that he belongs to Sahu Caste and cannot marry girl belonging to Uraon caste and since the prosecutrix had sent him to jail he will only make physical relations but will not marry her. The prosecutrix reported the said incident to police in writing on 19.09.2025 as such offences under section 64, 69 of BNS and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was registered at SC & ST Welfare Police Station, Baikunthpur.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the victim herself is a married lady and there is no question for alluring her on the pretext of marriage. The statement of the prosecution witnesses does not disclose the commission of rape as alleged under pretext of marriage being an adult lady and it is improbable that once she had made complaint of rape and case is pending then she again allowed the applicant to commit rape with her consent on pretext of marriage. The allegation under the statement of the prosecutrix does not reveal that offence has been committed as she belongs to Schedule Caste nor the complaint makes out any such case. The appellant has been falsely implicated in this case, he has not committed any offence as alleged against hime, hence, he may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon order/decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in SLP (Crl) No.11154/2025 (Sidhan @ Sidharathan versus State of Kerala & Anr).

5. Learned State Counsel opposes the anticipatory bail of the appellants.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. Pursuant to order of this Court, today victim/complainant appeared before this Court through virtual mode and raised objection in granting anticipatory b