1 2025:CGHC:33012 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1268 of 2025 1 - Manikchand Yadav S/o Shri Ganeshwar Yadav Aged About 29 Years R/o Village - Chhatasarai (Chharratangar), Thana - Bagbahar, District - Jashpur (C.G.). ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station - Bagbahar, District - Jashpur (C.G.). ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 15/07/2025 1. The complainant appeared before this Court through virtual mode from the concerned DLSA and raised his objection in granting anticipatory bail to the appellant. 2. This appeal u/s 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short “the SC/ST Act”) has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 16.06.2025 passed by the Special Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.07.16 10:27:15 +0530 2 Judge, SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Jashpur, District – Jashpur (C.G.) in B.A. No.122/2025 whereby the application filed by the appellant under Section 482 of BNSS apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.173/2023 registered at Police Station Bagbahar, District - Jashpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 420 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been rejected. 3. The case of prosecution, in short, is that on 13.10.2023, complainant Alil Toppo lodged a report stating therein that on 26.01.2021 he has purchase a tractor from Bhatiya Showroom, Raigarh Road Patthalgaon amounting Rs. 6,20,000/- and a sum of Rs. 5,10,000/- has been financed by L& T in installments and to repay the loan he has given a sum of Rs. 54,000/- on 13.02.2023 and Rs. 50,000/- on 17.02.2023 to the appellant but the said amount has not been deposited in his loan account by the appellant and the finance company is going to recover the amount of EMI from him. 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 by the complainant in this case saying that the amount of Rs. 1,04,000/- has been collected by the applicant from the 3 complainant and the same is not deposited in his account though the appellant has given the amount to the manager on same day and he has not maintained the record properly committed the offence of breach of trust and side by side made the report against the applicant. He further submits that the bail application has been rejected by the trial Court on the ground that there is a bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act. However, the case under the Atrocities Act is not prima facie made out as there is no averment regarding the caste in the FIR as well as in the statement and therefore, anticipatory bail should be granted to the appellant. 5. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, opposing the anticipatory bail, submits that investigation is going on and till date in the investigation it has come to know that the appellant recovered an amount of Rs. 30,36,000/- from 68 persons which has not been deposited by the appellant in the finance company and there is possibility of more disclosure in the investigation and therefore, he is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail considering grievousness of the offence and the bar under Section 18 of the Atrocities Act. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 4 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Looking to the material available on record and the perusal of the order impugned, it is evident that investigation is going on, and till date in the investigation, it has come to know that the appellant recovered an amount of Rs. 30,36,000/- from 68 persons, which has not been deposited by the appellant in the finance company. However, the appellant stated to be deposited with the bank account of the finance company and with the manager, but there is no evidence or documents to this effect. Apart from this, there is a mention of a particular caste; therefore, the rejection of the anticipatory bail by the trial Court on that basis is found to be proper. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the nature and gravity of offence and the material collected and available on record against the appellant, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. 8. Accordingly, the present appeal for grant of anticipatory bail stands dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H.L. Sahu