Bhimlesh Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally
signed by
ALLENA
ALLENA ANNAJEE
ANNAJEE RAO
RAO Date:
2026.03.16
14:50:52
+0530

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRA No. 535 of 2026

¶6

Bhimlesh Patel S/o Shri Sohanlal Patel Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Tendua, Police Station and Tahsil Patna, District Koriya C.G. (Father Name of Applicant correctly mentioned)

¶7

... Appellant

¶8

versus

¶9

State of Chhattisgarh through the Station House Officer, Police of Police Station Ajak Baikunthpur, District Koriya C.G.

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

For the appellant	: Mr.	Anil Gulati, Advocate
For the State	: Mr.	Anish Tiwari, DeputyGovt. Advocate

¶12

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)

¶13

Order on Board

¶14

13/03/2026

¶15

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 anticipatory bail to the appellant as he is apprehending arrest in Crime No. 1/2026 registered at P.S. AJAK , Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 69 of B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶16

2

¶17

2. By impugned order dated 14.01.2026 passed by the learned Special Court (SC/ST Act), Baikunthpur, District Koriya the application filed by the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail has been rejected, which has been challenged in this appeal.

¶18

3. As per the prosecution case, the victim came in contact with the appellant in the 2019 and since then the relations between them have grown and further they fell in love with each other. On 14.09.2019, the appellant for the first time established physical relations with the victim and thereafter they continued such relations and ultimately on 28.12.2025, the appellant lastly committed sexual intercourse with her on the pretext of marriage. When the victim asked him to marry her, he refused and insulted her.

¶19

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecutrix was major at the time of incident and she is a married lady having a child of 11 years and her first marriage was not dissolved. He further submits that the complaint does not make out a prima facie case for applicability of Special Act and the bar created under Section 18 would not be attracted in this case. He further submits that there is no immediate possibility of disposal of case, therefore, the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶20

5. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and supports the order of the trial Court. He referred to para 6 of the statement of victim recorded u/s 183 of BNS and submits that the appellant assured to marry her at Raipur Arya Samaj and on such assurance, she was subjected to sexual intercourse and when she asked for marriage, he insulted her and refused to marry her.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

3

¶24

8. The incident was narrated by the victim in her statement u/s 183 BNS in detail which shows that appellant got her admitted in a Nursing College in Chirimiri where the appellant took a room on rent and kept her there. He used to visit in the rented room once or twice a week, telling every one that he was her husband. Appellant told the room owner that he was not married to the victim but he was about to marry her. For three years, appellant pretended to be her husband and continued to have physical relations, as a result, she became pregnant. Appellant forced her to remove her pregnancy. Further, the FIR was registered under the provisions of Special Act.

¶25

9. Since the contents of FIR and statement of victim u/s 183 disclose the commission of physical relations for a considerable period of six years alleging the atrocities under the Special Act, the bar created under Section 18 and 18A of the Act strictly applies, prohibiting the grant of anticipatory bail.

¶26

10. In view of the above discussion, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected.

¶27

Sd/(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

¶28

Rao

Bhimlesh Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhimlesh Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukhiram Nayak Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nikil Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sanjay Kashyap Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajkumar Dhruv Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jeevanlal Ray Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sagar Yadav Vs the State of Chhattisgarh