1 2025:CGHC:38026 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1396 of 2025 1 - Parmanand Rathore S/o Babulal Rathore Aged About 38 Years R/o Village - Nawagawan (Wrongly Mention 'Nawagano' in impugned Order), Police Station - Balouda, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.). ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through - Station House Officer, Police Station - Schedule Caste And Schedule Tribe Welfare (AJK) Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Adv. and Mr. Sourav Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Priya Sharma, P.L. For Objector : Mr. T.K. Jha, Adv. and Mr. Aman Tamboli, Adv. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 01/08/2025 1. 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 09.07.2025 passed by the Special Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.08.04 10:22:03 +0530 2 Judge, SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in B.A. No.541/2025 whereby the application filed by the appellant under Section 482 of BNSS apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.7/2025 registered at Police Station Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribe Welfare (AJK), District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(2), 324 of BNS and Section 3(1)(r) & 3(1) (s) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been rejected. 2. The case of prosecution, in short, is that on 13.06.2025 in the evening, the complainant asked the appellant when the barricade upon the canal would be removed, then the appellant and others assaulted the complainant using filthy language, mentioning the caste of the complainant. Thereafter, on 15.06.2025, again the appellant, along with others, came to the house of the complainant and threatened to commit murder. Based on this, offence has been registered against the present appellant. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the appellant did not used caste related filthy language against the complainant and his family members to humiliate. He also submits that 3 the appellant is the husband of village sarpanch and a bridge over the canal was constructed in the front to the house of the complainant, therefore the complainant feeling disturbance hence for taking revenge falsely implicated the present appellant in the crime in question. 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. He placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Prathvi Raj Chauhan vs. Union of India and Others, reported in (2020) 4 SCC 727, and the decision of this Court in the matters of Sadan Lal Yadav vs. State of C.G., passed in CRA No. 1264/2025 on 22.07.2025 and Basant Kumar Sahu & Ors. vs. State of C.G., passed in CRA No. 1121/2021 on 28.02.2022. 4. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, opposing the anticipatory bail, submits that in the written complaint made by the complainant dated 16.06.2025 coupled with FIR, there is a clear mention that the appellant abused him and his family members mentioning their caste, and therefore, he is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail 4 considering grievousness of the offence and the bar under Section 18 of the Atrocities Act. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the objector/victim also opposes the same and submits that there is a bar under Section 18 of the Atrocities Act. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to grant anticipatory bail. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. In the case in hand, looking to the material available on record, it is clear that there is a mention of a particular caste in the FIR coupled with complaint made by the complainant, and the facts of the cases cited by the counsel for the appellant is different from the present case, therefore the case law cited by the counsel for the appellant is no use of him; hence, the rejection of the anticipatory bail by the trial Court on the basis of bar under Section 18 of Atrocities Act is found to be proper. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the nature and gravity of the 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. 5 8. Accordingly, the present appeal for grant of anticipatory bail stands dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H.L. Sahu