1 2025:CGHC:40463 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1506 of 2025 1 - Shivcharan Sahu S/o Jageshwar Sahu Aged About 77 Years R/o Village Padiyain, Tahsil Pandariya, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Pathariya (Ajak Mungeli), District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. B.M. Roy, Advocate. For State : Mr. Karan Baharani, P.L. For Objector : Mr. Raj Kumar Pali, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 12 / 08 / 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, against the order dated 22.07.2025 passed by learned Special Judge SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Mungeli, District - Mungeli (C.G.) in Bail Application No. 205/2025 whereby the bail application filed by the appellant under Section 482 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 has been rejected. Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.08.13 10:19:05 +0530 2 2. The appellant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.143/2025, registered at Police Station – Pathariya (Ajak Mungeli), District-Mungeli (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 191(2) of BNS, 2023 and Section 3(1) 10 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 the complainant, Smt. Sunita Baghel lodged a report stating that on 15.07.2025, a meeting was held at Gram Panchayat Bhawan, Padiyaen to prohibit the illegal sale of liquor in the village. In the said meeting, the present applicant, along with other co-accused persons, was present. Some liquor mafia agreed to prohibit the illegal sale of liquor, whereas the accused persons, namely, Sivam Sahu, Dikeshwar Sahu, Dhananjay Sahu, call their family members, namely Lakhan Sahu and present appellant Shivcharan Sahu, who threatened to resolve the land dispute; otherwise, illegal sale of liquor could not be stopped. It is also alleged that by threatening life abused with the name of caste and also committed assault by means of hands and fists. Based on this offence has been registered against the present appellant along with other co-accused persons. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and had been falsely implicated in the instant case. He further submits that during panchayat meeting, there was some dispute in between other co- accused persons and complainant with regard to land of the village, but the present appellant has neither committed assault nor used filthy language with the complainant. The present appellant is a very old person of 3 about 77 years and he is suffering from heart disease and his treatment is going on regularly for heart blockage, documents has been filed as Annexure A-2 in this regard. He also submits that 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 the trial court is not valid and appropriate. Therefore, the appellants may be granted anticipatory bail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the state opposes the anticipatory bail application. 6. The victim is present in person along with her counsel before this Court and raised their objection to grant bail to the appellant. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. 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 . Union of India and Others 1 . Even though, offence under the Act of 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 1 (2020) 4 SCC 727 4 (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. 9. 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, it is mentioned that on the date of offence, the meeting was held between the public representatives and the liquor mafia and in that meeting land dispute was also raised and it is alleged that assault was also committed by the accused persons, but there is no MLC report to corroborate the FIR as the complainant, who is also a Sarpnach of the village, refused to conduct MLC. There is no criminal antecedent of the appellant, who is aged about 77 years. 10. In such a situation, keeping all the above in view and in the light of above judgments, 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 following terms and conditions: 5 (i) that the appellant shall make 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 him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H.L. Sahu