1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1692 of 2025 1 - Lakhanlal Sahu S/o Aajuram Sahu Aged About 52 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 (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Banhiman Roy, Advocate. For State : Mr. H. A. P. S. Bhatia, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 04 / 0 9 / 20 25 1. This appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 has been filed 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 anticipatory bail application filed by the appellant under Section 482 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 has been rejected. Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2025.09.04 18:44:04 +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 appellant, along with other co-accused, was present. Some liquor Mafias agreed to prohibit the illegal sale of liquor, whereas the accused persons, namely, Sivam Sahu, Dikeshwar Sahu, Dhananjay Sahu, call their family members, namely Shivcharan Sahu and present appellant Lakhan Sahu, who threatened to resolve the land dispute; otherwise, illegal sale of liquor could not be stopped. It is 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 has 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. He also submits that there is no mention of cast related abuse or any offence under the Special Act. 3 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. He further submits that co-accused Shivcharan Sahu has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 12.08.2025 in CRA No. 1506/2025 and the allegation against the present appellant is not different from the allegation against the co-accused. Therefore, the appellant may be granted anticipatory bail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the state opposes the anticipatory bail application. 6. The victim appeared before this Court today through V.C. and raised objection to grant bail to the appellant. 7. 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 found that merely because offence under Section 3(2)(V)(a) of the Act, 1989 was registered against the applicant, learned trial Court 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 (supra) and if material on record leads to satisfaction that 1 (2020) 4 SCC 727 4 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 appellant. The learned trial Court 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 learned 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 Mafias and in that meeting land dispute was also raised and it is alleged that assault was also made 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. Moreover, co-accused Shivcharan Sahu has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court and the allegation against the appellant is not different from that of the co-accused. 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. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest of present 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 5 concerned, as the case may be, with the following terms and conditions: (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 to be given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Khatai