1. These appeals arising out of same Crime No.278/2022, therefore, they are being heard analogously and disposed of by a common order.

2. These appeals under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe(Prevention of Atrocities) Act,(hereinafter referred to as”Special Act”) have been filed against the order of bail rejection orders passed by the learned Special Judge(Atrocities), Ambikapur District- Sarguja (CG) rejecting the application u/s 439 CrPC in connection with Crime No.278/2022 registered at police station Kotwali Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG), for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(ढ), 376(D), 294, 506, 109, 115, 120B of IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989(for Short’ the Act’) and Sections 67, 67A of Information Technology Act.

3. Case of the prosecution in brief is that in the year 2019 prosecutrix was residing in the house of Nurjahan Nusrat. Accused Shabnam and Alam informed the prosecutrix that there is an occultist (Tantrik) namely Subham Khairwar who possess super natural power and can generate money from the body of a virgin girl. After this the coaccused Subham Khairwar came to the house of Nurjahan, took measurement of the prosecutrix and in the name of generating money he raped the prosecutrix.

4. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant in CRA No.1053 of 2022 submits that the allegations against the appellant Sandhya Singh is not proved in the entire charge-sheet and the allegations of 376 IPC cannot be made out against her. He further placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Priya Patel Vs. State of M.P. and another reported in 2006 (6) SCC 263 [LQ/SC/2006/595] (Para-8). He further submits that so far as the special act are concerned, this offence is not made out as per FIR lodged by the complainant/victim. It is not mentioned that the appellant was knowing the fact that the victim belongs to SC/ST category, therefore in view of judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2009 CrLJ 350 no offence is made out under the Special Act. He further submits that the incident took place between the period from 1.11.2019 to 12.2.2020 and the report was lodged on 31.03.2022 after inordinate delay of 2 years and the reason assigned for delay is not sufficient and creates doubts on the prosecution story. He submits that the allegations against the present appellant is that being a lady she facilitated or abated the commission of the crime and the main allegation of Section 376 of IPC is against the co-accused Subham Khairwar, appellant is in jail since 21.02.2022 and the charge-sheet has been filed, trial is likely to take some time, the application may be allowed.

5. Mr. Amarnath Pandey, Counsel for the appellant in CRA No.1080 of 2022 adopted the submission made by Senior Counsel however, supplemented his submission that 164 statement of prosecutrix does not inspire confidence and the appellant can only be charged for abatement of the crime because at the time of said crime the accused were present and the main allegations is against Subham Khairwar who is main accused, they are in jail for about more than 8 months and the reason for delay in lodging FIR is not properly explained, therefore, application may be allowed.

6. Mr. S. S. Baghel, Counsel for the appellant in CRA No. 1058 of 2022 also supplemented the arguments advanced by senior counsel however submits that appellants themselves are the victim and they have never acted anything as stated in the charge-sheet. However, he submits that the only allegation against the present appellants is that they abated the commission of crime.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail applications and submits that the main allegations of sexual intercourse is against the main accused Subham Khairwar however, from investigation carried out by the Investigation Agency, it is ample clear that the said crime was committed with the conspiracy of these accused persons who have facilitated, abated and subjected the victim to commission of crime and the main accused has committed the said crime. He further submits that the victim was residing in the house of Musarrat Ali and Nurjahan and she was made to go into a room where the intercourse was committed by main accused Subham Khairwar. The allegation against the other co-accused is that they are residing where the victim were subjected to commit intercourse by Subham Khairwar. So far as the explanation of delay is concerned, he submits that the victim was forced to not reveal the incident and also threatened that obscene video would be made viral and when she gathered courage, she lodged the report even otherwise delay is a matter of trial which cannot be adjudicated at this stage for giving benefit of bail. He submits in response to submission of senior counsel that no offence under the Special Act is made out that provision contained in Section 8-C of the Special Act envisages that there is presumption of the crime and only of the fact that the victim belongs to SC/ST catogory. Therefore, at this stage submission made by senior Counsel cannot be accepted and it would be seen at the stage of trial.

8. On 25.07.2022 prosecutrix/victim present before this Court and raised her objection for grant of bail to appellants.

9. Counsel for the objector submits that the crime committed by the appellants are heinous in nature and the victim was only 19 years of age at the time of said offence, she was residing in rented premises at Surajpur. All these appellants have hatched conspiracy and she was subjected to intercourse many times by Subham Khairwar and at this stage the material collected in the investigation are sufficient to hold them guilty and involved in the commission of crime. He further submits that they are also charged under Section 67, 67A of Information Technology Act and other relevant provisions of IPC and Special Act, therefore, at this stage, they are not entitled for bail.

10. In rejoinder to this, Senior Counsel submits that the submission of State counsel as well as counsel for the objector cannot be accepted because there is no sufficient explanation of delay in lodging FIR and when another victim subjected to same crime, she made a complaint.

11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions.

12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the nature of allegations, material collected so far, statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 and 164 CrPC, looking to the seriousness of offence, I am not inclined to allow these applications. So far as the submissions made by senior counsel that there is delay in lodging the FIR could be considered at the time of trial.

13. Accordingly, these bail applications are hereby rejected.

14. This Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case. However, looking to the detention period of applicants, the learned trial Court is expected to expedite the trial.

15. Certified copy as per rules.