1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2093 of 2025 Shrawan Kumar Sidar @ Sarvan Kumar Sidar S/o Ramsingh Sidar Aged About 58 Years R/o Ward No. 17, Village Suadera, Police Station Sakti, District Sakti Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, Police Station Sakti, District Sakti, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For the appellant : Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha, Advocate with Mr. Aman Tamboli, Advocate For the State : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, Panel Laywer For the objector : Mr. Hemant Agrawal, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 11/11/2025 1. This appeal is filed under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant as he is apprehending arrest in Crime No. 214/2025 registered at P.S. Sakti, District Sakti, Chhattisgarh for the offences punishable under Sections 296, 351(3), 115(2), 333, 74, 303(3), ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2025.11.12 14:23:29 +0530 2 111, 117(2), 61(2)(a), 190(2), 310(2), 424(4)(5) of BNS and sections 3(1)(ब)(1), 3(1)(द)(ध) and 3(2)(क) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. By impugned order dated 17.09.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge under SC & ST (PA) Act, District Janjgir Champa, the application filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail has been rejected, which is under challenge in this appeal. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 25.06.2025 at about 3 O’ clock the present applicant along with other accomplice forcibly entered the complainant/victim’s palace with an intention of grabbing the complainant’s house and abused the complainant with obscene language, threatened to kill her, molested her, assaulted her and insulted her with cast based abuses. When some persons tried to come to the rescue of complainant, they were also assaulted by the appellant and panic was created by the appellant and his other accomplice in the palace by damaging furniture, motorcycle mobile phones etc., and further they looted cash, jewelry and mobile phones thereby the offence has been committed. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant also belonged to Scheduled Tribe, therefore, the provisions of Special Act would not apply to this case. He further submits that neither the FIR nor the statement of victim recorded u/s 164 CrPC mentions the name of appellant and even there was no test identification to identify the appellant. He submits that earlier a complaint was made against the election of victim’s husband, therefore, in wreaking vengeance, a false complaint has been made against the appellant. He next submits that the charge sheet was filed by the police while the appellant was shown to be absconding whereas the appellant was not a proclaimed absconder under Section 82 of CrPC. He has relied on the order passed by the Supreme Court in Asha Dubey 3 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh passed on 11.11.2024 in Criminal Appeal No.4564 of 2024 (SLP (Crl) No.13123/2024 and submits that even if the appellant is declared absconder under Section 82 of the CrPC, there will be no total embargo in all cases on considering the application for grant of anticipatory bail. He prays that the appellant may be granted anticipatory bail. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the objector vehemently opposes the grant of anticipatory bail and submits that the appellant along-with large number of his associates have forcibly entered the palace of the victim, assaulted her and tried to outrage her modesty and damaged the antiquities and furniture kept in the palace and further created havoc in victims palace and looted valuable things. He further submits that pursuant to the occurrence, the applicant was absconding, therefore in his absence the charge sheet has been filed. He relies on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2025) 256 Comp Cas 395 : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 764 (Serious Fraud Investigation Office Versus Aditya Sarda) and submits that if the applicant does not submit to the authority of law and chooses to abscond, he is not entitled to the privilege of anticipatory bail and he has to seek regular bail. Learned State Counsel also opposes the prayer for grant of bail and supports the order of the trial Court. 6. On the contrary, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the decision relied on by learned counsel for the complainant is applicable to the serious nature of offences like economic offences or heinous crimes and the instant case relates to a simple quarrel between the appellant and victim/complainant which cannot be termed as serious offence. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 8. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the undisputed fact that the appellant also belonged 4 to Scheduled Tribe as admitted by the victim/complainant as also the fact that neither the FIR nor the 164 CrPC statement of the victim shows the name of appellant and further the appellant was not shown to be identified, I am inclined to release the appellant on anticipatory bail. 9. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 17.09.2025 passed by the Trial Court is set aside. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the appellant in connection with the aforesaid crime number, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned arresting/investigating officer, 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 appellants 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 given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. Cc as per rules. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao