Where sexual assault is attributed to the brother, his sister’s abortion advice attracts neither Section 69 BNS nor Section 3(2)(v).

The appellant, sister of co-accused Ejaz Ahmad, apprehended arrest in Crime No. 372/2026 registered at Police Station Gandhinagar, District Surguja, for offences under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“SC/ST Act”).

The prosecution alleged that Ejaz Ahmad maintained physical relations with the victim on the promise of marriage from 2022, resulting in her pregnancy, and that the appellant advised or compelled the victim to undergo an abortion so that she could marry Ejaz Ahmad.

The Special Judge (Atrocities), Surguja, rejected the appellant’s bail application on 1 July 2026.

The appellant challenged that order under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act and sought anticipatory bail.

The victim appeared through the District Legal Services Authority before the High Court on 17 August 2026 and raised no objection to the appellant being released on bail.

1. Whether, on the allegations made against the appellant, a prima facie offence under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita was made out against her.

2. Whether the alleged offence attracted Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act against the appellant.

3. Whether the appellant was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act.

The Court exercised appellate jurisdiction under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act against the order of the Special Judge refusing bail.

Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita was treated as applicable to the alleged sexual assault; however, the Court held that the provision was not prima facie attracted to the appellant because the allegation of sexual assault was directed against her brother, not against her.

Consequently, the Court held that Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act was also not attracted against the appellant on the facts presented.

No judicial precedent was cited or relied upon.

The Court distinguished the allegations against the co-accused from those against the appellant.

While the prosecution alleged that Ejaz Ahmad had sexually assaulted or exploited the victim, the appellant was alleged only to have advised or forced the victim to undergo an abortion.

On that basis, the Court concluded that the essential allegation supporting Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita was not attributable to the appellant and that the consequential SC/ST Act charge was likewise not prima facie established against her.

The victim’s appearance through the DLSA and her consent to the appellant’s release further supported the grant of anticipatory bail.

It directed that, in the event of arrest, the appellant be released on anticipatory bail upon executing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety for the like amount, subject to conditions prohibiting interference with witnesses or the fair trial, requiring appearance before the trial Court on every date, submission and verification of Aadhaar and photograph particulars, and refraining from involvement in similar offences.