The court denied regular bail to an accused who allegedly sexually exploited a member of a Scheduled Tribe through blackmail, emphasizing the gravity of the offense and the fact that the trial had not yet commenced.

Order on Board

1. This appeal is filed under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for grant of regular bail to the appellant in Crime No. 56 of 2026 registered at P.S. Ambikapur Distt. Sarguja for the offence punishable under Sections 64(2) (m), 351(2) of BNS and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2. By impugned order dated 05.02.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocities) in Crime No.56 of 2026, the application filed by the applicant for grant of regular bail has been rejected, which has been challenged in this appeal.

3. As per the prosecution case, the appellant is accused of forcibly establishing physical relations with the victim belonging to Scheduled Tribe on multiple occasions by threatening to edit and make her photographs viral on social media.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was love affairs between the prosecutrix and appellant; the prosecutrix is major and had voluntarily accompanied the appellant, therefore, she was a consenting party. He submits that the appellant is in jail since 03.02.2026 and there is no immediate possibility of disposal of case, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail.

5. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and supports the order of the trial Court. He submits that the victim belonged to a special caste and the appellant had often subjected the victim to have forcible physical relations by threatening to make her photographs viral. Therefore, the act of appellant using intimate images to black mail, humiliate or sexually exploit her attracts the provisions of Special Act.

6. The victim along with mother has appeared through VC from the concerned DLSA and objected to bail.

7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents available on record.

8. Having thus considered the submissions made by the parties and the nature of allegations levelled against the appellant as also the fact that the trial has not yet commenced, I am not inclined to release the appellant on bail. Accordingly, this appeal is rejected