1 / 4 2025:CGHC:60582 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2082 of 2025 Umashankar Upadhayay S/o Ravi Datt Upadhyay Aged About 20 Years R/o Ward No. 02, Mirauni, P.O. Madwa District Janjgir-Champa C.G. ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Sarangarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh C.G. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Advocate For State /Respondent : Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 12/12/2025 1. The instant appeal under Section 14-A (2) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 has been filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 12/09/2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocities Act) Raigarh, C.G., in Bail Application No.831/2025, whereby the application under Section 482 of B.N.S.S. of the appellant has been rejected. ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.12.16 18:01:51 +0530 2 / 4 2. The appellant has preferred this appeal for grant of anticipatory bail as they are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.407/2025 registered in Police Station Sarangarh, District Sarangarh- Bilaigarh, C.G. for offence punishable under sections 3(1) (u) and (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 & under Section 351 (2) of the BNS, 2023 3. As per the prosecution case, the complainant belongs to the Scheduled Caste community and is an editor of a YouTube channel named Sarangarh Dastak and is also a reporter of Harsh News has alleged that the petitioner allegedly holding the aforesaid Instagram ID makes pamphlets on the lines of Bagehwar Dham in Santoshi temple of Village: Godam P.S. Sarangarh, to which the complainant had gone with his maternal uncle Rakesh Nirala a year ago to get a solution to his marriage problem, but his maternal uncle has not been able to get married till date and since one Ajay Upadhyay (brother of the petitioner) had posted a video on his Instagram ID explaining the advantages and qualities of Bageshwar Dham, and in which the complainant had commented on the video because the problem of his maternal uncle was not solved. After which, the complainant made a video about the Bageshwar Baba and also published on YouTube portal and newspapers. To which it has been alleged that the Satnami community has been insulted by the petitioner by using castism remarks. It has been alleged that petitioner has made absurd and caste comments about the Satnami caste on his Instagram ID and along with this, derogatory words have been used against Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar, due to which the complainant's social and religious 3 / 4 sentiments has also been hurt and moreover it has also been alleged that the appellant has threatened to take action against complainant. Therefore, the aforesaid charges had been levelled upon the appellant by the aforesaid complainant. Thereafter, on the basis of the written complaint the FIR was registered against the appellant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that from the contents of the FIR it does not reflect that the appellant had made any remark which appears to be derogatory or abusing thereby hurting religious sentiments. He would next contend that one Raja Baghel provoked the appellant by using derogatory and abusive languages against the appellant about his caste and in reply to that the appellant made certain remarks which were not regarding caste or any abusive word was used by him. He would lastly contend that under the facts & circumstances of the case the appellant is entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and stated that there is a prima facie case made out against the appellants under the provisions of the Act, 1989. 6. Victim appeared through VC from DLSA, Sarangarh and he recorded his objection with regard to grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 8. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the record, this Court finds that the allegations made in the FIR, on their face, disclose 4 / 4 commission of offences punishable under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. At this stage, the Court is required to examine only the prima facie nature of the accusation, and not to conduct a detailed appreciation of evidence. 9. In view of the specific averments in the FIR attributing intentional insult, humiliation and intimidation to the complainant, who belongs to a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe, the ingredients of the offences under the Act cannot be said to be absent. Consequently, the statutory bar contained in Section 18 and Section 18-A of the SC/ST Act, which expressly prohibit the grant of anticipatory bail where a prima facie case under the Act is made out, becomes operative. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that once the allegations prima facie attract the provisions of the Act, the Court is precluded from exercising jurisdiction for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, as the case is clearly hit by the embargo of Section 18 / 18-A, this Court is not empowered to grant anticipatory bail. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 11. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu