1 2025:CGHC:36661 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1273 of 2025 1 - Dipanshu Singh S/o Rakesh Singh, Aged About 20 Years, (Wrongly Mentioned As Dipanshu Singh Rajput), Aadhar No. - (4055 6011 9581) Presently R/o Below House Of Dharmesh Sahu, Bhagwanpur, Police Station - Kotra Road, Raigarh Tahsil And District-Raigarh (C.G.). ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, District- Raigarh (Cg) (Concerned Police Station- Kotra Road). ... Respondent For the Appellant : Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. K.K. Baharani, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 28/07/2025 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 regular bail to the appellant as he is arrested in Crime No. 263/2025 registered at P.S. Kotra SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.07.30 10:14:25 +0530 2 Road, District-Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 196, 351(2), 352(2) of BNS and Section 3(2)(va) of the Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. By impugned order dated 18.06.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Raigarh, District-Raigarh (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case (under the Atrocities Act) No. 1106/2025 (State of Chhattisgarh Vs Dipanshu Singh Rajput), the application filed by the applicant for grant of regular bail has been rejected, which has been challenged in this appeal. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 14.06.2025, at about 10:00 p.m., the complainant, Shravan Kumar Mahesh, who is the District President of Bhim Army Raigarh, was informed through Instagram that the accused, Dipanshu Singh Rajput, had made indecent remarks and castiest abuses against Babasaheb Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar and the reserved classes through social media. The complainant submitted a written complaint to Kotra Road Police Station regarding the incident. Based on the complaint, First Information Report (FIR) No. 263/2025 was registered against the accused under Sections 196, 351(2), and 352(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 3 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order passed by the Special Judge is perverse, erroneous, and unsustainable in law, given the facts and circumstances of the case. It is further submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. The counsel further contended that the applicant is a young student pursuing his studies, and his entire career would be adversely affected if he remains incarcerated. The charge-sheet has been filed, and there are 12 witnesses cited. The applicant has been in jail since 15.06.2025, and the trial has not yet commenced and there is no immediate possibility of disposal of trial, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and supports the order of the trial Court. 6. The case is listed for recording the objections of the victim on 21.07.2025; however, neither the victim nor any representative on her behalf has appeared. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the applicant is in jail since 15.06.2025 and he has no criminal antecedent. Although the charge-sheet has been filed, the trial has not commenced and there is no immediate possibility of disposal of trial, without commenting upon the merits of the case, this Court is 4 inclined to release the appellant on bail. 9. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 18.06.2025 passed by the Trial Court is set aside. 10. It is directed that the appellant shall be released on bail on his executing a personal bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the said Court as and when directed. 11. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Sourabh P.