1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1867 of 2025 1 - Dhananjay Sahu S/o Lakhanlal Sahu Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Padiyain, Tahsil Pandariya, District Mungeli C.G. 2 - Dikeshwar Sahu S/o Jagdish Sahu Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Padiyain, Tahsil Pandariya, District Mungeli C.G. 3 - Shivam Sahu S/o Sobhnath Sahu Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Padiyain, Tahsil Pandariya, District Mungeli C.G. ... Appellants versus State of Chhattisgarh through the Station House Officer, Police Station Pathariya (Ajak Mungeli), District Mungeli C.G. ... Respondent For the appellants : Mr. Banhimon Roy, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 26 / 09 / 2025 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 ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2025.09.26 17:43:46 +0530 2 filed by the appellants under Section 482 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 has been rejected. 2. The appellants are 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 appellants, along with other co-accused, was present. Some liquor Mafias agreed to prohibit the illegal sale of liquor, whereas the the present appellants namely, Sivam Sahu, Dikeshwar Sahu, Dhananjay Sahu, called their family members, namely Shivcharan Sahu and 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 the complainant in the name of caste and also committed assault by means of hands and fists. Based on this, offence has been registered against the present appellants along with other co-accused persons. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are innocent persons and have 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 appellants have neither committed assault nor used filthy language 3 against the complainant. He also submits that there is no mention of cast related abuse or any offence under the Special Act and the bar under 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 another co-accused Lakhanlal Sahu has also been granted anticipatory bail on 04.09.2025 and the case of the present applicants is also on similar footing. Therefore, being in parity with the case of co-accused, the present appellants may also be granted anticipatory bail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the state opposes the anticipatory bail application. 6. The victim has not appeared to raise objection or non- objection regarding grant of bail despite service of notice. 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 1 (2020) 4 SCC 727 4 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 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 and Lakhan Sahu have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court and the allegations against the appellants are 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 appellants. 5 11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest of present appellants in connection with aforesaid crime number, they shall be released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety each 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: (i) that the appellants shall make himself available for interrogation/medical test, etc., before the concerned investigating officer as and when required; (ii) 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 him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) that the appellants shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and (iv) that the appellants shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date to be given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial. Cc as per rules. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao