2025:CGHC:48119 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1791 of 2025 1 - Akram S/o Ramjan, Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Mahuadih, P.S. Shankargarh, District Balrampur Ramanujganj (C.G.) 2 - Masum S/o Mustafa, Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Mahuadih, P.S. Shankargarh, District Balrampur Ramanujganj (C.G.) 3 - Tausif S/o Sahid, Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Mahuadih, P.S. Shankargarh, District Balrampur Ramanujganj (C.G.) 4 - Samim @ Samin S/o Mahboob, Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Mahuadih, P.S. Shankargarh, District Balrampur Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- P.S. Shankargarh, District Balrampur Ramanujganj (C.G.) ---- Respondent (Cause title is taken from the CIS) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellants : Shri Akath Kumar Yadav, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Karan Kumar Bahrani, PL For Objector : Shri Saurab Sonwani, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 18.09.2025 1. Present Criminal Appeal has been preferred under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘SC/ST Act’), against the order dated 13.08.2025, passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Balrampur-Ramanujganj, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj (CG), whereby the anticipatory bail of the appellants which was arising out of Crime No.104 of 2025, registered at the Police Station Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2025.09.23 10:53:02 +0530 Cra 1791 of 2025 2 Shankargarh, District-Balrampur-Ramanujganj, for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and 3(1) (r) & (s) of the SC/ST Act has been rejected. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that, on 04.08.2025, FIR has been registered against the appellants on the complaint made by the complainant with an allegation that the appellants have made pressure on her to withdraw the earlier complaint, which was made by her father to the Police, and if she does not withdraw it, she will face dire consequences. They chased her, and outraged her modesty. The FIR has been registered against the appellants for the offence under Sections 296, 351(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and 3(1) (r) & (s) of the SC/ST Act, in which the appellants are apprehending their arrest. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that for the alleged incident, on 21.07.2025, father of the complainant, namely, Nazir Ahmed, has already lodged a report against the appellants for which Crime No.98 of 2025 has been registered at Police Station- Shankargarh for the offence under Sections 115(2), 281, 296, and 351(2) of the BNS, 2023, in which the appellants are released on bail as the said offeces are bailable. Thereafter, the appellants have made a complaint against the complainant, and her father on 21.07.2025 that they pressurized them and raised quarrel with them by demanding the electricity connection for a week from their shop, and when the appellants denied to give the electricity connection from their shop, the present complainant again lodged complaint against them, only to create pressure upon them. However, there is no such incident occurred on that day. There is no intentional insult, or assault, made by the appellants, to the complainant, Cra 1791 of 2025 3 and it is only pressure tactics by the complainant. Since the offence under the Atrocities Act is prima facie not made out, and therefore, the bar under Section 18 of the Act did not attracted. It is next submitted that the dispute arose between the parties on the issue of their earlier dispute, and report and counter report have been lodged by the parties. All the other offences are bailable, except the offence of Atrocities Act, and therefore, the appellants may be granted anticipatory bail in the case. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposing the bail application, would submit that the FIR has been registered against the appellants for the punishable under Sections 296, 351(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and 3(1) (r) & (s) of the SC/ST Act. As per Section 18 of the Atrocities Act, Anticipatory bail is barred, therefore, application for granting bail is liable to be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the complainant/objector would also opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, and would submit that in view of bar under Section 18 of the Atrocities Act, present bail application is not maintainable. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the material available in the case diary. 7. On perusal of case diary, it transpires that the substantive offence registered against the appellants is triable by the learned JMFC, except the offence under the Atrocities Act. It reveals from the document annexed with the bail application that on 21.07.2025, the FIR has been registered against appellant- Akram on the report made by the complainant Nazir Ahmad. As per Cra 1791 of 2025 4 the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, they have been released on bail as all the said offences alleged in Crime No.98 of 2025 are bailable ones. It also transpires from the copy of the report dated 21.07.2025 Annexure A4 that a complaint was made by the present appellants to the Police Station Shankargarh, stating the threatening given by the present complainant party, and rising quarrel with them. It further transpires from the present FIR, Annexure A3, that the incident is alleged to be occurred on 21.07.2025, however, the FIR has been lodged on 04.08.2025. When the incident was occurred on 21.07.2025, there was no reason for not lodging the report immediately on the date of itself, or immediately thereafter, particularly, when another report has been lodged by Nazir Ahmad on 21.07.2025 itself, it transpires that on that day, though the complainant lodged the report against the appellants, and against the appellants FIR of Crime No.98 of 2025 has been registered at the same Police Station on the report of Nazir Ahmad, and they have been released on bail, however, when the appellants are available, report has been made by the complainant in the same Police Station, yet no action has been taken on the same day, on the report made by the present complainant would create doubt upon the allegation levelled by the complainant registering the case on the date of lodging report itself, create suspicion. It is only on 21.07.2025, there is counter complaint, made by the appellants to the same Police Station, and thus, looking to the complaint, and counter complaint by the parties concerned, it transpires that FIR has been registered against the appellants with respect to the usual quarrel occurred between the parties. 8. From perusal of the FIR, it appears that the dispute arose between the parties for withdrawing the earlier complaint lodged by the complainant family Cra 1791 of 2025 5 members. There is no substance in the FIR which would demonstrate that the appellants abused or assaulted or threatened the complainant, naming her caste, or defaming her reputation, as she belongs to SC or ST community. The other offences, which have been alleged against the appellants are triable by the JMFC. Therefore, present case in the considered opinion of this Court, is of exceptional nature, and within the four corners of category of cases, where benefit of anticipatory bail can be granted, despite there being bar under Section 18 of the Atrocities Act. 9. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellants is allowed, and the impugned order dated 13.08.2025, passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Balrampur-Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (CG) in bail application No.406 of 2025 is set aside. 10. It is directed that in the event of arrest of appellants in connection with Crime No.104 of 2025, registered at Police Station Sankargarh, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, they shall be released on bail on their furnishing Rs.25,000/- with one surety each in the like sum to the Officer, arresting them. Appellants also abide by the following conditions: a) that the appellants shall make themselves available for interrogation before the investigating officer as and when required; b) that the appellants shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; c) that the appellants shall not act, in any manner, which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and Cra 1791 of 2025 6 d) that the appellants shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial. 11. It is made clear that any observation made in this order is restricted only for consideration of the present appeal. The learned trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits without being influenced by any observation made in this order. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE padma