1 2025:CGHC:35209 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1264 of 2025 1 - Sadan Lal Yadav S/o Late Bahoran Yadav Aged About 52 Years R/o Vill. - Bhilai, P.S. - Balouda, Teh. - Balouda, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, P.S. - Balouda, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Aishwarya Kumar Dubey, Adv. For State : Mr. Vivek Sharma, P.L. For Objector : Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 22 / 07 / 2025 1. This appeal has been filed by the accused/appellant under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 r/w Section 482 of BNSS for grant of anticipatory bail, against the order dated 24.06.2025 passed by learned Special Judge SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Janjgir, District - Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) in Bail Application No. 488/2025 whereby the bail application filed by the appellant under Section Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.07.22 17:26:39 +0530 2 482 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 has been rejected. 2. The appellant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.80/2025, registered at Police Station – Balouda, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(2), 115(2) of BNS, 2023 and Section 3(2)(v-a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act 1989'). 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 03.03.2025, at about 9:00 am, appellant Sadan Yadav was having a pit dug for laying the foundation by employing labourers. The complainant went there and objected, stating that the land belonged to him. How are they digging a pit, then the accused/appellant abused him with filthy language and threatened to kill him, caught hold of his collar and assaulted him with a stick, due to which the complainant sustained injuries. Based on this offence has been registered against the present appellant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. He further submits that the appellant is the ex-sarpanch of the place and, in his official capacity, was overseeing the construction of the Government's Mangal Bhawan being made on Government land, wherein the complainant came and assaulted him. On the complaint of the appellant, a FIR No. 79/2025 has been lodged against the complainant, Sukhdev. Thereafter, FIR No. 80/2025 was lodged by the complainant against the appellant as a counterblast. In the Crime No. 80/2025 against the appellant, there is no mention of cast related abuse or any offence under the Special Act. The prohibition of Section 18 of the Special Act does not apply. The 'order in question' of 3 the trial court is not valid and appropriate in the light of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Prathvi Raj Chouhan vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in (2020) 4 SCC 727. Therefore, the appellant may be granted anticipatory bail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the state opposes the anticipatory bail application of the appellant and submits that the appellant has one criminal antecedent of the year 2014. The order of the trial court in question is appropriate. Hence, the application is liable to be dismissed. 6. The victim is present in persons before this Court today and raised objection in granting bail to the appellant. 7. Learned counsel for the objector also opposes the bail application, submitting that the appellant assaulted the victim with the help of a stick, due to which the victim sustained injuries. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the matter of Pavas Sharma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and another (CRA No. 806/2020, order dated 22.01.2021), has elaborately dealt with the issue pertaining to offence under the Act, 1989 and finds that merely because offence under Section 3(2)(V)(a) of the Act, 1989 was registered against the applicant, learned court below rejected the application holding it to be not maintainable in view of the provisions contained under Section 18 of the Act of 1989, without taking into consideration the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Prathvi Raj Chouhan Vs. Union of India and Others 1 . Even though, offence under the Act of 1 (2020) 4 SCC 727 4 1989 is registered, where application for grant of anticipatory bail is filed, the Court is required to apply its mind to the relevant provisions of law and considerations as specified by the Supreme Court in the case of Prathvi (supra) and if material on record leads to satisfaction that the complaint does not make out a prima facie case, for applicability of the provisions of the Act of 1989, the bar created under Section 18 of the Act of 1989 shall not apply and in appropriate cases of exceptional nature, benefit of anticipatory bail could be admitted to the applicant. The learned Court below committed patent illegality in mechanically rejecting the bail application. Order of rejection, therefore, cannot be sustained in law and, therefore, set aside. 10. After hearing counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and looking to the material available on record it is evident that in the FIR, caste related allegation is not mentioned, the appellant had lodged FIR (Crime) No. 79/2025 against the complainant, thereafter as a counterblast the FIR (Crime) No. 80/2025 has been lodged against the appellant by the complainant on the same day. 11. In such a situation, keeping all the above in view and in the light of above judgment, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the appellant in connection with aforesaid crime number, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-, with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned arresting/investigating officer or the Court concerned, as the case may be, with the 5 following terms and conditions: (i) that the appellant shall make herself/himself available for interrogation/medical test etc. before the concerned investigating officer as and when required; (ii) that the appellant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) that the appellant shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and (iv) that the appellant shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to her/him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H.L. Sahu