1 2025:CGHC:32797 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1231 of 2025 1 - Devendra Nath Sahu S/o Late Shri Netram Sahu Aged About 41 Years R/o Village - Kenapali, P.S. - Dabhara, District - Sakti (C.G.) 2 - Homeshwar Sahu S/o Late Shri Netram Sahu Aged About 36 Years R/o Village - Kenapali, P.S. - Dabhara, District - Sakti (C.G.) ... Appellants versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through , S.H.O., P.S. - Dabhara, District - Sakti (C.G.) ... Respondent For the applicants : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate For the State : Mr. Karan Kumar Bahrani, Panel Lawyer For the complainant Mr. D. Kushwaha, Advocate on behalf of Mr. P.K. Patel, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 14.07.2025 1. This appeal is filed under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for A ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by A ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2025.07.16 14:06:12 +0530 2 grant of ranticipatory bail to the appellants as they are apprehending arrest in Crime No. 195/2025 registered at P.S. Dabhara, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(2), 333, 3(5) of B.N.S. (corresponding sections of IPC, 294, 506(2), 452, 34) and Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. By impugned order dated 24.06.2025 passed by the learned Special Court, Janjgir Champa the application ( B.A. No. 480/2025) filed by the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail has been rejected, which is under challenge in this appeal. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the house of complainant Lekh Ram and his nephew Ghanshyam Banjare are closely situated to each other. On 03.06.2025, the accused persons of the same village namely Hameshwar Sahu and Devendra Nath Sahu assaulted his nephew Ghanshyam on which a meeting was called in the village wherein the accused applicants were not present. Again on 09.06.2025 at about 11.30 pm, applicants along with other persons came in four vehicles and created panic in front of their house. It is alleged that appellant Homeshvar blocked the network of complainant’s house and then the applicants along with others forcibly entered into the house of complainant and his nephew and hurled abuses in the name of caste “Chamar” and assaulted them and further threatened to kill them by burning with petrol and with a rifle. At the time of incident, the appellants were also carrying knives. 3 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the incident took place on 09.06.2025 and with the delay of 5 days the report was lodged on 14.06.2025 and no plausible explanation has been given in this regard. He further submits that prior to this, the appellant Devendranath Sahu had lodged a report against the complainant Lekh Ram Banjare and Ghanshyam Banjare etc., on 09.06.2025 itself, on which, crime number No.190/2025 was registered, and the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that appellant no.1 is a government teacher and there are no criminal antecedents against the applicants, therefore, considering all these aspects, the applicants may be granted anticipatory bail. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel and counsel for the objector oppose the prayer for bail. Learned counsel for the objector vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that there is bar under Section 18 and 18-A of the SC/ST Act, therefore, the bail cannot be granted to the appellants. 6. The complainant has appeared along with his counsel and recorded objection to grant bail. 7. Opposing the said submissions and the objection of the complainant, learned counsel for the appellant submits that this is not the case where the incident took place on the ground of cast based atrocities as prior to filing report by the complainant, appellant Devendranath Sahu had lodged a report against the complainant and others on 09.06.2025 itself, on which, crime number No.190/2025 was registered and as an arm twisting, the complainant has lodged report against the applicants to falsely implicate them. He submits 4 that the complainant being member of such category has taken the advantage to inclupate the appellants. He placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Union of India Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2020) 4 SCC 761, wherein it has been held thus in para 7 : “7. Section 18 of the 1989 Act has been enacted to take care of an inherent deterrence and to instill a sense of protection amongst the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It is submitted that any dilution of the same would shake the very objective of the mechanism to prevent the offences of atrocities. The directions issued would cause a miscarriage of justice even in deserving cases. With a view to object apprehended misuse of the law, no such direction can be issued. In case there is no prima facie case made out under the 1989 Act, anticipatory bail can be granted. The same was granted in the case in question also.” 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. Having considered the submissions made by the parties and the fact that the the dispute was existing between the two parties prior to the incident and on the basis of the appellants party's report regarding the incident of 09.06.2025, Crime No.190/2025 was registered against the complainant on the same day and also considering the fact that the report of the complainant is delayed by 5 days and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2020) 4 SCC 761, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case where the anticipatory bail can be granted to the appellants. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order 5 dated 24.06.2025 is set aside. 11. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the appellants, on each of them furnishing a personal bond in sum of Rs.25,000/ with one surety each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer, they shall be released on bail on the following conditions :- (a) they shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required, (b) they shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court or to any police officer, (c ) they shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, (d) they shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial, (e) they shall not involve themselves in any offence of similar nature, in future. Cc as per rules. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao