Rudramani Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh

The appellant has preferred this Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for setting aside of order dated 30.04.2026 passed by the Special Judge SC/ST Act (Atrocities) Jashpur, District- Jashpur (C.G.) and for grant of anticipatory bail, as he apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.67/2026, registered at Police Station- Kansabel, District Jashpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

The prosecution story, in brief, is that the victim lodged a report at Police Station Kansabel alleging that the appellant, after establishing contact with her through Facebook in the year 2023, induced her into a relationship and thereafter subjected her to forcible sexual intercourse on several occasions, as a result of which she became pregnant and was allegedly made to undergo abortion. It is further alleged that the appellant subsequently abused and harassed her, threatened and followed her, circulated her photographs among her relatives and acquaintances and also took Rs. 2,00,000/- from her and her brother on the pretext of arranging land. On the basis of the said report, Crime No. 67/2026 was registered against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) of the IPC and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence. It is submitted that the appellant and the victim knew each other since January, 2023 and were in a consensual relationship for a considerable period, both being major in age. The victim, being a mature woman and mother of two children, voluntarily maintained the relationship with the appellant and never raised any allegation against him for about three years. It is further submitted that the FIR has been lodged after an unexplained delay of about three years, only with an intention to harass and humiliate the appellant and tarnish his image. It is further submitted that the allegation under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not prima facie made out, as there is no material to show that the alleged act was committed against the victim on account of her caste. The allegation regarding circulation of her photograph and the alleged payment of ₹2,00,000/-by the appellant is also denied. The appellant has no criminal antecedent and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from justice or tampering with the evidence. Learned counsel further submits that the case is covered by the principles laid down by the Allahabad High Court in Dinesh Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine All 8063, wherein, in the facts of a prolonged consensual relationship, the Court considered the absence of prima facie material to constitute the offence of rape and granted anticipatory bail. It is, therefore, prayed that the appellant may kindly be granted anticipatory bail.

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that serious allegations have been levelled against the appellant of repeatedly committing rape upon the victim since 2023, causing her pregnancy and thereafter abortion and also of threatening, harassing and circulating her photographs. It is further submitted that the victim is a widow belonging to the Scheduled Tribe community and the appellant, despite being a police employee, exploited her by establishing physical relations on false pretext and also obtained illegal monetary benefit from her. During investigation, her medical examination was conducted, wherein old ruptured hymen and habituation to sexual intercourse were noted and her caste certificate has also been seized. It is, therefore, submitted that considering the seriousness of the allegations and the material collected during investigation, the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary and other material available on record.

The applicant is a police official. A police officer holds systemic authority granted by State. A victim often complies not out of free will, but out of fear of legal retaliation. A police official holds dominance position. Therefore, defence of consensual relationship cannot be accepted and free will of victim if any got vitiated.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the offence, allegations of repeated forcible sexual intercourse since 2023 resulting in pregnancy and abortion and the subsequent threats, harassment and circulation of photographs and the allegation of obtaining Rs. 2,00,000/- from the victim, coupled with the material collected during investigation showing that the victim is a Scheduled Tribe widow lady and the medical and other documentary evidence available in the case diary, this Court is of the view that the facts of the present case are distinguishable from the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant in Dinesh Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine All 8063, wherein the relief was granted in the facts of a prolonged consensual relationship. In the present case, the allegations are of repeated forcible sexual intercourse and subsequent exploitation and harassment and therefore, the appellant does not deserve the benefit of anticipatory bail

Accordingly, the bail application of the appellant namely -Rudramani Yadav, involved in Crime No. 67/2026 registered at Police Station - Kansabel, District – Jashpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act., is rejected.