Allowed

Anupa Rathore v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC20 Sept 2026CRA/1282/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh set aside the Special Judge's orders rejecting anticipatory bail for two appellants accused under Section 69 BNS and SC/ST Act provisions. The court found the relationship was consensual, the victim was married with a child, and no sexual assault was alleged against the mother. The appellants were granted bail on personal bonds of Rs.50,000 each with sureties and standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Appellants granted anticipatory bail on personal bonds of Rs.50,000 each with one surety of like amount, subject to standard conditions.

Anupa Rathore Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Caste Atrocities | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NIRMALA RAO

¶3

CGHC010188462026 2026:CGHC:41060

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

CRA No. 1247 of 2026 1 - Yogesh Kumar Rathore S/o. Late Sajjan Kumar Aged About 25 Years R/o. Q. No. 1800, Krishna Vihar, N.T.P.C. Colony, P.S. Darri, District- Korba (C.G.) --- Petitioner(s)

¶7

versus

¶8

1 - State Of Cg Through S.H.O. P.S. Kotwali, District- Korba (C.G.)

¶9

--- Respondent(s) CRA No. 1282 of 2026 1 - Anupa Rathore W/o Late Sajjan Rathore Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Kharwani, Post Sohagpur, Tahsil Barpali, District Korba, C.G.

¶10

--- Petitioner(s)

¶11

Versus

¶12

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through SHO Ps Kotwali, District Korba, C.G. --- Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Rajnish Singh Baghel and Mr. Adarsh Rajput, Advocates. For State : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pandey, Dy. A.G.

¶13

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶15

Order on Board

¶16

21.09.2026

¶17

The appellants have preferred these Criminal Appeals under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short “the SC/ST Act”) for setting aside the orders dated 28.4.2026 & 4.5.2026 passed by the Learned Special Judge SC/ST Act (Atrocities), Korba (C.G.) and for grant of anticipatory bail, as they apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime No.135/2026, registered at Police Station- Kotwali, District Korba (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 69 of BNS and Sections 3((2)(v) & 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act, 1989.

¶18

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 9.2.2026, the victim lodged a written complaint against the accused, namely, Yogesh Kumar Rathore, alleging that between 29.10.2020 and 1.11.2025, the appellant, Yogesh Kumar Rathore, on the pretext of marriage, committed rape upon the victim and thereafter refused to marry her. His mother, Anupa Rathore, who is the appellant in CRA No. 1282 of 2026, also refused to accept her. On the basis of the said complaint, the police registered an FIR against the appellants, Yogesh Kumar Rathore and Anupa Rathore.

¶19

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that the victim is a married lady who maintained a physical relationship with the appellant, Yogesh Kumar Rathore, from 29.10.2020 till November 2025, and thereafter lodged a written report on 9.2.2026. They would argue that the appellant, Yogesh Kumar Rathore, could not have

¶20

¶21

committed the alleged offence, as there was a love affair between them. They would further submit that, in CRA No. 1282 of 2026, neither Section 69 of the BNS, 2023 nor Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, 1989 is attracted, as there is no allegation of sexual assault against the mother of Yogesh Kumar Rathore. They would pray that the appeals be allowed.

¶22

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the criminal appeals and the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants. He would submit that there are serious allegations of sexual assault against the appellant, Yogesh Kumar Rathore, and coaccused Anupa Rathore, who assisted the main accused, and therefore, both the appeals deserve to be dismissed.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary along with the documents placed on record.

¶24

It appears that a complaint was made by the appellant, Yogesh Kumar Rathore, before the Superintendent of Police on 23.1.2026, wherein it was stated that the victim was compelling the appellant to solemnize marriage. Annexure-A/4 would show that counselling took place between the appellant, Yogesh Kumar Rathore, and the victim, but the said counselling could not materialize.

¶25

With regard to the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, 1989, perusal of the contents of the FIR would reveal that there was a consensual relationship between them. The victim is a married lady with a child, and the appellant, Yogesh Kumar Rathore, did not maintain the relationship on the ground that the victim belongs to a particular category rather there was consensual relationship. Further,

¶26

¶27

the offence punishable under Section 69 of the BNS, 2023 is not made out against the lady and, therefore, Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, 1989 is also not attracted.

¶28

Having considered the above-discussed facts, the orders dated 28.4.2026 and 4.5.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act (Atrocities), Korba (C.G.), in Crime No. 135 of 2026, rejecting the applications filed by the appellants under Section 482 of the BNSS, are hereby set aside.

¶29

It is directed that in the event of the appellants executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- each with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, they shall be released on bail, on following conditions :-

¶30

(a) They 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 them from disclosing such fact to the Court.

¶31

(b) They shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial.

¶32

(c) They shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial.

¶33

(d) The Appellants and the surety shall submit a copy of their aadhar card alongwith a colored postcard full size photo having printed the aadhar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court.

¶34

(e) They shall not involve themselves in any offence of similar nature in future.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶37

Nimmi

Anupa Rathore v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anupa Rathore v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases