1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1818 of 2025 1 - Ashish Gupta Ramesh Gupta, Aged About 48 Years R/o Sadar Road, Balod, Police Station And District- Balod Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Balod, District - Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant (s) : Mr. S.C. Verma Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Manharan Sahu and Ms. Sunita Jain, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, Panel Lawyer S.B. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on board 23.09.2025. 1. The present is a criminal appeal under Section 14 (A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 filed by the appellant against the impugned order dated 29.08.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, Balod, Dist- Balod (CG) in Bail Application No. 306/2025, whereby the bail application filed by the appellant under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. for grant of regular bail is rejected in connection with Crime No. 228/2025, registered at Police Station Balod, Dist- Balod (CG). SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.09.24 11:26:06 +0530 2 2. Pursuant to the order dated 09.09.2025, the complainant appeared through virtual mode from DLSA Balod and raised objection in granting bail to the appellant. His objection is taken on record. 3. The present appeal is arising out of the order dated 29.08.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, Balod, in Bail Application No. 306/2025 whereby the regular bail application of the appellant has been rejected. The appellant is in jail since 28.08.2025 pursuant to the offence of Crime No. 228/2025 registered at AJAK Police Balod for the offence under Section 296, 115 (2), 351 (2), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita and Section 3 (2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 4. The case of the prosecution is that on 04.06.2025, the complainant lodged a report that on 02.06.2025 when he along with his wife had gone to Durg for his family work, on the way, the appellant called him at Balod and on the way near Shitla Mandir, the appellant came there, demanded the money back which was borrowed by him and when he gave him Rs. 10,000/- he started altercation and abusing. After short while the appellant came there and he too have abused him by hand and fists. When his wife tried to intervene, she too have been assaulted by the accused persons. The incident was witnessed by the witnesses Jagdish, Asha Bai and Rahul and thereafter, he lodged the report. On the report lodged by the complainant, the offence of Section 115 (2), 296, 3(5) and 351 (2) of BNS was registered and during course of investigation the offence under Section 3 (2)(v) of SC/ST Act has been added. In which the appellant has been arrested on 28.08.2025 and after investigation charge-sheet has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the offences under the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 is bailable one, however, only the offence under the Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is non-bailable. There is no ingredients under the SC/ST Act in the alleged complaint as the substantive offence under the IPC does not provided the maximum sentence of 10 years or more. Therefore, the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act is not applicable in the present case. It is only when the appellant demanded the money back, the altercation took place which does not come under the SC/ST Act. The appellant is in jail since 28.08.2025, investigation has been completed and charge- sheet has been filed. No custodial interrogation is required. There is no criminal antecedent against the appellant, therefore the appellant may be released on bail. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that from perusal of the FIR, there 3 is sufficient material against the appellant that he intentionally committed the offence with the complainant for which he has been arrested. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 8. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, considering the nature of allegation and also from perusal of FIR, this Court does not find any material to substantiate the offence of Section 3 (2)(v) of SC/ST Act. From the FIR, it transpires that it is only when the appellant demanded his money back through her servant Heeraman, the incident occurred and on the way, the appellant had allegedly assaulted the complainant by hand and fists. Considering the totality of the present appellant and also the fact that he is in jail since 28.08.2025, the nature of the offences under the BNS, I am inclined to release the appellant on bail. 9. The appeal is allowed. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court for his appearance before learned trial Court on each date of hearing unless exempted. 10. It is made clear that any observation made in this order is restricted only to considering the bail application. 11. Learned trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits without being influence by any observation made in this order. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Sagrika