Ankit Kumar Jaiswal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:779

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRA No. 2592 of 2025

¶6

Ankit Kumar Jaiswal S/o Shri Shivshankar Jaiswal Aged About 24 Years Occupation Farmer, R/o Village Bhaiswar, P.S. And Tahsil Sonhat, Distt. Korea, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

... Appellant

¶8

versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station In Charge Ajak Police Station, Baikunthpur, Distt. Korea, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

(Cause title taken from Case Information System)

¶12

For Appellant : Mr. Anuroop Panda, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Panel Lawyer

¶13

Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board

¶14

06/01/2026

¶15

VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN

¶16

Pursuant to the order dated 11.12.2025, the complainant appeared through virtual mode from DLSA, Korea, Baikunthpur and raised objection in granting bail to the appellant. Her objection is taken on record.

¶17

Digitally signed 2. The present criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(2) of by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.01.0715:06:06 +0530 the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

¶18

2

¶19

Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the order dated 29.11.2025, passed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Baikunthpur, District Korea, in Bail Application No. 382 of 2025, whereby the anticipatory bail application of the appellant has been rejected by the learned Trial Court.

¶20

The case of the prosecution is that, on 23.11.2025, an FIR has been lodged by the victim, against the appellant, with the allegation that, she has already married with ‘X’ in the year 2014, and residing at village Amra. The appellant used to come to her house to meet her husband, and in the year 2021, the appellant proposed her that, he is liking her and wanted to marry with her. In the month of August 2024, he made forceful physical relation with her, knowing that she belongs to Pando caste, and thereafter repeatedly committed rape upon her, on many occasions. He also kept her separated from her husband, and she used to reside at her parents' house at Radharaman Nagar. In the year 2024, the appellant performed marriage with her, by applying vermilion on her head, at Shankar Mandir, Mendra. and lastly, he made physical relation with her, in the month of September 2025, at village Chhinddand, Baikunthpur. He also get her fetus aborted, by giving pills, and subsequently he refused to keep her with him, as his wife, and then report has been lodged. The police had registered the offence under Section 69 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, in which the appellant is apprehending his arrest.

¶21

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that, the appellant has been falsely implicated in the offence. The complainant is already a

¶22

3

¶23

married lady with ‘X’ since 2014, and was well known to her well-being. She was having dispute with her husband, and since the appellant is the friend of her husband, she lodged a report against him, that he allured her for marriage, and sexually exploited, and ultimately refused to marry with her. There is no sufficient allegation against the appellant, that he committed rape on the victim, knowingly, that she belongs to that particular caste and the offence under the Atrocities Act, is prima facie not made out, only because she belongs to member of the Scheduled Tribe community. The FIR under the Atrocities Act has been registered. The appellant is having reputation in the society and community, and therefore, he may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶24

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and has submitted that, from the complaint and statement of the witnesses, there is ample material against the appellant that, the complainant was sexually exploited by the appellant, and on the interference of the appellant, there was a divorce between the complainant and her husband. Even, there is allegation that the appellant has caused abortion of her fetus. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶25

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the bail application as well as case diary.

¶26

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, considering the nature of allegations and the material collected during the investigation, further considering the contents of the FIR as well as her statement recorded under Section 183 of Bharatiya Nagarik

¶27

4

¶28

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, I am inclined to release the appellant on anticipatory bail.

¶29

Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed and the impugned order dated 29.11.2025 is set aside . The appellant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court. the appellant shall also abide by the following conditions:-

¶30

(i) The appellant 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 from disclosing such fact to the Court.

¶31

(ii) The appellant shall not act, in any manner, which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, and

¶32

(iii) The appellant shall appear before the Trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial unless his personal presence is exempted by the Trial Court.

¶33

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.

¶34

Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge

¶35

ved

Ankit Kumar Jaiswal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankit Kumar Jaiswal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Royden Harold Buthello Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Deniyal Tandi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gajendra Kumar Vishwakarma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Panchram Chauhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shyamlal Choudhary Vs Sukanti Patel

Ritik Mandilwar @ Bamfod Vs State of Chhattisgarh