Chattisgarh High Court
Gunasagar Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 12 June, 2025
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2025:CGHC:23551
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 981 of 2025
1 - Gunasagar Yadav S/o Shri Peetambar Yadav Aged About 23 Years R/o
Village- Godhikala, (Bhatamuda), Thana And Tahsil- Patthalgaon, Distt.-
Jashpur (C.G.).
... Appellant
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station-
Patthalgaon, Distt.- Jashpur (C.G.).
... Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate
For Res./State : Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer and Mr. Jitendra
Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
12.06.2025
1. Pursuant to the order dated 20.05.2025 and 10.06.2025, through video
conferencing (DLSA), Patthalgaon, District- Jashpur, the complainant
appeared in person before this Court on today i.e. 12.06.2025 and raised
objection in granting bail to the appellant.
2
2. The instant appeal has been filed in connection with Crime No. 54 of
2025 registered at Police Station Patthalgaon, District- Jashpur (C.G.) for the
offence under Sections 64(2)(m) of BNS and Section 3(ii)(v) of the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 (in short, ‘the SC/ST Act’) whereby the appeal filed by the appellant vide
impugned order dated 29.04.2025, has been rejected by the learned Special
Judge (SC/ST Act), Jashpur, District- Jashpur (C.G.).
3. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant/victim aged about
38 years working as Head Master in Education Department has lodged the
report on 10.03.2025, at Police Station Patthalgaon, District- Jashpur against
the present appellant with the allegation that she is residing separately from
her husband since last 10 years with her children’s and on 02.04.2023, she
went to purchase the Scorpio vehicle with the appellant from Ambikapur
Showroom and after purchase of the vehicle they returned back to her
house where the appellant has developed physical relation with her and since
02.04.2023 to 01.03.2025 on many occasions, physical relations were
developed. The appellant also threatened her to viral her photographs,
therefore, the said report has been lodged. On the report made by the
complainant, the FIR has been registered in which the appellant is
apprehending his arrest.
4. Mr. Sunil Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would
submit that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the offence in
question. He would also submit that the complainant is 38 years of age and
an educated lady working as Head Master in Education Department and
there was physical relation between them for more than two years and the
appellant who is working as driver of the complainant resided with her since
3
last two years in her house as a servant. In the month of March 2025, when
the marriage of the appellant was fixed with another girl then the said
complaint has been lodged. He would further submit that the learned Special
Judge has not considered the case of the appellant on merits and rejected
the same by mentioning that the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST act is
registered therefore, the application filed under Section 482 of BNSS is not
maintainable. He would lastly submit that the appellant is innocent and
falsely implicated in the offence in question and will cooperate with the
investigations as well as the trial, therefore, he may be enlarged on
anticipatory bail.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and have
submitted that on the report made by the complainant, the FIR has been
registered. From the FIR, it reflects that the complainant was raped by the
appellant on many occasions and on being threatening of viral the
photograph she made complainant and as she belongs to Schedule Caste
therefore, the offence under the SC/ST Act has been registered and in view
of bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act his anticipatory bail application is
not maintainable and the same is liable to be rejected.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary
with utmost circumspection.
7. First, it is to be considered the bar of the anticipatory bail application as
provided under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act. Section 18 of the SC/ST Act
defines that :-
“18. Section 438 of the Code not to apply to persons committing
an offence under the Act.–Nothing in section 438 of the Code shall
apply in relation to any case involving the arrest of any person on an
accusation of having committed an offence under this Act.
4
[18A. No enquiry or approval required.–(1) For the purposes
of this Act,–
(a) preliminary enquiry shall not be required for
registration of a First Information Report against any
person; or
(b) the investigating officer shall not require approval
for the arrest, if necessary, of any person,against whom an accusation of having committed an
offence under this Act has been made and no procedure
other than that provided under this Act or the Code shall
apply.
(2) The provisions of section 438 of the Code shall not apply
to a case under this Act, notwithstanding any judgment or
order or direction of any Court.]”
8. In the matter of Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala and Another, 2024
SCC Online SC 2249, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that Section 18 of the
SC/ST Act does not create an absolute bar on the anticipatory bail application
or examining whether the prima facie case under the SC/ST Act is made out
or not. The Courts are entrusted with a duty to verify the averments in the
complaint and to find out whether an offence under the SC/ST Act is prima
facie made out or not. In para 41 of its judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court has
held that:-
“41. It is clear from the aforesaid discussion that Section 18 of
the Act, 1989 does not impose an absolute fetter on the power
of the courts to examine whether a prima facie case attracting
the provisions of the Act, 1989 is made out or not. As discussed,
Section 18 stipulates that in any case which involves the arrest
of any person on the accusation of having committed an offence
under the Act, 1989, the benefit of anticipatory bail under
Section 438 of CrPC would not be available to the accused. We
5have deliberated on the significance of the expression “arrest of
any person” appearing in the text of Section 18 of the Act, 1989
and are of the view that Section 18 bars the remedy of
anticipatory bail only in those cases where a valid arrest of the
accused person can be made as per Section 41 read with
Section 60A of CrPC.”
9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Prithvi Raj Chouhan Vs.
Union of India and others, reported in (2020) 4 SCC 727 has observed in
paras 11, 32 and 33 as under:-
“11. Concerning the applicability of provisions of Section 438 CrPC, it
shall not apply to the cases under the 1989 Act. However, if the
complaint does not make out a prima facie case for applicability of the
provisions of the 1989 Act, the bar created by Section 18 and 18-A(i)
shall not apply. We have clarified this aspect while deciding the review
petitions.
32. As far as the provision of Section 18-A and anticipatory bail is
concerned, the judgment of Mishra, J. has stated that in cases where
no prima facie materials exist warranting arrest in a complaint, the court
has the inherent power to direct a pre-arrest bail.
33. I would only add a caveat with the observation and emphasis
that while considering any application seeking pre-arrest bail, the High
Court has to balance the two interests; i.e. that the power is not so used
as to convert the jurisdiction into that under Section 438 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, but that it is used sparingly and such orders made in
very exceptional cases where no prima facie offence is made out as
shown in the FIR, and further also that if such orders are not made in
those cases, the result would inevitably be a miscarriage of justice or
abuse of process of lwhen this Court examined the FIR lodged by the
6complainant it reveals that it is alleged by the complainant that at the
time of filling of nomination form for the post of Upsaw. I consider such
stringent terms, otherwise contrary to the philosophy of bail, absolutely
essential, because a liberal use of the power to grant pre-arrest bail
would defeat the intention of Parliament.”
10. In the present case, the complainant aged about 38 years is an
educated lady and working in the Education Department. The appellant was
residing at the house of the complainant as servant and they were made
consensual physical relation and when the marriage of the appellant was
fixed with another girl she(complainant) made report against him. Therefore,
considering the nature of allegation, the manner in which the alleged incident
is said to have been occurred and also from perusal of the FIR, prima facie
there is no allegation or averment is made out regarding her caste which can
constitute the ingredients of special act. Therefore, the ratio laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments, present case is of the
exceptional nature and within the four corners of the category of cases where
benefit of anticipatory bail can be granted despite bar under Section 18 of the
SC/ST Act, I am inclined to allow the appeal and extend benefit of
anticipatory bail to the appellant.
11. Consequently, appeal filed by the appellant- Gunasagar Yadav is
allowed and the impugned order dated 29.04.2025 passed in Bail Petition
No. 76 of 2025, Crim No. 54 of 2025 passed by the learned Special Judge
(SC/ST Act), Jashpur, District- Jashpur (C.G.) is set aside. It is directed that in
the event of arrest of the appellant in connection with the aforesaid offence,
he shall be released on bail on executing a personal bond and one surety
7
in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer. The appellant
shall also abide by the following conditions :-
(i) that he shall make himself available for interrogation before the
investigating officer as and when required;
(ii) that he shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the
case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the
Court or to any police officer;
(iii) that he shall not act, in any manner, which will be prejudicial to
fair and expeditious trial; and
(iv) that he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date
given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial.
12. It is made clear that any observation made in this order is restricted
only for consideration of the present appeal. The learned trial Court shall
decide the case on its own merits without being influenced by any
observation made in this order.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Amita
AMITA Digitally signed by
AMITA DUBEY
DUBEY Date: 2025.06.13
17:32:25 +0530