1 2025:CGHC:35576 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1301 of 2025 1 - Kartikeshwar Sahu S/o Mahatma Lal Sahu Aged About 41 Years R/o Madhaibhatha, P.S.- Sarsiwa, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.). 2 - Hulesh Vaishnav S/o Balbhadra Vaishnav Aged About 40 Years R/o Madhaibhatha, P.S.- Sarsiwa, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Applicants versus State of Chhattisgarh through the Station House Officer, Police Station, Sarsiwa, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent For the appellants : Mr. Aman Kesharwani, Advocate For the State : Mr. Karan Kumar Bahrani, Panel Lawyer For the objector : Ms. Ruchi Nagar, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 23/07/2025 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 anticipatory bail to the appellants who apprehend arrest in connection with Crime No.183/2025 registered at P.S. Sarsiwa, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(3), 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3(2)(v)(a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. A ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by A ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2025.07.28 18:25:44 +0530 2 2. By impugned order dated 19.06.2025 passed by the learned trial Court Raigarh the application filed by the appellants for grant of anticipatory bail has been rejected, which is under challenge in this appeal. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that the appellants called the complainant Darikant Ratnesh through mobile phone and abused him in filthy language in the name of caste and further threatened to kill him and later the appellants entered into the house of complainant and abused him, due to which, he and his family members are scared. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants have not committed any such offence as projected by the prosecution and earlier Appellant no.1 Kartikeshwar Sahu who is Up-Sarpanch of the village has made complaint before the Collector against the misappropriation of Panchayat funds committed by the village Sarpanch Deenanath Jatwar, therefore, at his instance and due to personal grudge and enmity, the appellants have been falsely roped in by the complainant. He further submits that the ingredients of alleged offence under Section 3(2)(v)(a) of the Special Act are not at all attracted, therefore, they may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that from FIR, prima facie case is made out under the Special Act and further the bar u/s 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 would also be attracted to anticipatory bail. 6. The victim has appeared in person and objected to grant bail. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 8. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the appellants. Accordingly, this appeal is rejected. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao