2025:CGHC:56882 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2218 of 2025

1 - Basant Sahu S/o Ramlal Sahu Aged About 26 Years R/o Kishanpara, Ramayan Chowk, Chantidih, Police Station- Sarkanda, Bilaspur (C.G.)

... Appellant(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station-

Sirgitti, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ----Respondents For Appellant : Ms. Kajal Chandra, Advocate.

For State : Ms. Nupur Trievedi, P.L.

For Objector : Mr. Anchal Kumar Matre, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge

Order on Board

24.11.2025

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 06.10.2025 (Annexure A-1) passed by learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Bilaspur (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 Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date:

2025.11.24 +0530 No. 461/2025 registered at Police Station – Sirgitti, Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 69 and 351(2)

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 brother of the appellant is the owner of RL21 Fitness Gym in which the prosecutrix was working as receptionist. In the gym, the prosecutrix meet with the appellant who is the brother of owner of the gym. After the meeting of the appellant with the prosecutrix, the appellant has given assurance of marriage to the prosecutrix and established physical relationship with the prosecutrix and lastly on 16.07.2025, the appellant has developed physical relationship with the prosecutrix. The appellant refused to marry the prosecutrix than the prosecutrix has submitted written report at police station and on the basis of the written report of the prosecutrix, the present FIR was lodge against the appellant for the commission of offence which is punishable under Section 69 and 351(2) of BNS and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the victim herself is a married lady and she is having two children and as per the information of the appellant, the prosecutrix has not given the divorced to her husband till date. 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. 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.

5. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the finding recorded by Learned Special Court that anticipatory bail is not maintainable, is perverse as in view of the judgment passed by the Hon”ble Supreme Court in the matter of Prithviraj Chauhan Vs. Union of India, reported in (2020) 4 SCC 727 in which it is held that the “application of the provisions of the SC/ST act shall only apply after the prima facie satisfaction that an offence under the SC/ST Act has occurred, and consequently the absolute bar imposed on grant of anticipatory bail by virtue of Sections 18 and Section 18A would not apply in case the complainant fails to make a prima facie case for applicability of the provisions of the SC/ST Act. He also relied upon the judgment passed by this court in the matter of Pankaj Singh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh vide order dated 06.05.2022 passed by Hon’ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari were it is held as under:-

Even in the Atrocities Act, the Court has a duty to strike a balance and check the possibility of false accusations, if a person is able to show that, prima facie, he has not committed any atrocity against a

member of SC and ST and that the allegation was

malafide and prima facie false and that prima facie

no case was