1 2025:CGHC:40462 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1505 of 2025 1 - Bipat Gupta S/o Late Shri Banshi Sao Aged About 44 Years R/o Village- Bhawanipur, Police Chowki Tatapani, Police Station Ramanujganj, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Chowki-Tatapani, Police Station - Ramanujganj, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 12/08/2025 1. The victim 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 Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.08.13 10:19:08 +0530 2 against the order dated 14.07.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balrampur, District - Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) in B.A. No.349/2025 whereby the application filed by the appellant under Section 482 of BNSS apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.102/2025 registered at Police Station Ramanujganj, District - Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(2), 191(3), 331(5), 324(6) of BNS, 2023 and Section 3(1)(n)(/k)(V-d) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been rejected. 3. The case of prosecution, in short, is that on 27.06.2025, the appellant Bipat Gupta, along with the wife of the complainant and Jhari Sai, brother-in-law of the complainant, went to the house of the complainant and abused him and his three sisters with the name of caste, threatening for life and also committed assault with the means of stick on account of partition of family land. Based on this, offence has been registered against the present appellant along with co-accused persons. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that Parvati, the wife of the complainant, is a resident of village Bhawanipur and the appellant, being elected Up-sarpanch of Village Bhawanipur 3 went to the house of the complainant to resolve property dispute and no overt act was committed by him and also neither inflicted any injury to the complainant or his family members nor used any abusive words. He also submits that the other co-accused persons have already been granted bail by the trial Court. 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 which is not applicable in the present facts of the case in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Uday Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 46. Therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted to the appellant. 5. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, opposing the anticipatory bail, submits that in the FIR, the main allegation is against the present appellant, charge sheet has not been filed, the appellant has two criminal antecedents and Harikeshwar, neighbour of the complainant supported the case of the prosecution in his statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 4 7. Looking to the material available on record and the perusal of the FIR, it is evident that the appellant used filthy language by caste of the complainant and also committed assault on the complainant and his sisters by means of stick. 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