1 2025:CGHC:40940 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1553 of 2025 Umakant Jain S/o. Shri Pen Kumar Jain, Aged About 29 Years R/o. Village - Nara Bade Para, Post - Bagodar, Thana- North Baster Kanker, Tahsil and Distt.- North Baster Kanker (C.G.) ... Appellant versus - State of Chhattisgarh through The District Magistrate Kanker, Distt.- North Baster Kanker (C.G.) ... Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shreyahnsh Pathak, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 13/08/2025 1. Apprehending arrest in Crime No. 164/2025 registered at P.S. Kanker (Uttar Bastar) Chhattisgarh for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 3(5) of BNS and Section 3(2) (V) (A), 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the appellant has filed this appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant 2. By the impugned order dated 07.07.2025 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities Act) Kanker the application filed by the appellant for grant of anticipatory bail has been rejected, which has been challenged in this appeal. A ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by A ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2025.08.14 18:25:56 +0530 2 3. Appellant Umakant Jain and two other accused Deepika Jain & Pen Kumar Jain have applied for grant of anticipatory bail before the Trial Court. By order dated 30.06.2025, the trial Court has granted anticipatory bail to Deepika Jain and Penkumar Jain, however, later by impugned order dt. 7.7.2025 rejected the bail application of the present appellant Umakant Jain on the ground of his previous record. It is mentioned that on the counter report of Pen Kumar Jain, father of present appellant, initially, FIR No. 162 was registered against the victim Mahesh Poya on the same day i.e., 01.06.2025 stating that victim Mahesh Poya hurled abuses on the complainant and others in the name of mother and sister. Thereafter, victim Mahesh Poya filed FIR No.164 on the same day making arm-twisting allegations against the present appellant and other accused persons and alleged that the present appellant and other accused have abused and assaulted him. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that on the same FIR filed by Mahesh Poya, other accused persons Deepika Jain and Pen Kumar jain have been enlarged on anticipatory bail, however, the bail application of the present appellant Umakant Jain has been rejected on the same set of allegations, therefore, being in parity with the case of other accused Deepika Jain and Pen Kumar Jain, the present appellant may also be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and supports the order of the trial Court. 6. Having considered the submissions made by the parties and the co- accused Deepika Jain and Pen Kumar Jain, have been granted anticipatory bail by the trial Court on similar allegations made by victim Mahesh Poya in subsequent FIR No.164/2025 which does not mention any caste based allegations and further looking to the fact that the father of appellant Pen Kumar has already filed an initial report against the victim vide FIR No.162/2025, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the appellant. 7. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 07.07.2025 passed by the Trial Court is set aside. 8. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the appellant in connection with the aforesaid crime number, he shall be released on bail on his 3 executing a personal bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in 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 : (i) that the appellant shall make himself available for interrogation 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 di dissuade him 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. Cc as per rules. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao