1 2025:CGHC:54823 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2102 of 2025 Onkar Nath Mishra S/o Late Shri Badriprasad Mishra Aged About 67 Years R/o Makadi, Tahsil And Police Station Makadi, District- Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh … Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Makadi, District - Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent For Appellant : Mr. V.R. Tiwari, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Atul Kesharwani & Mr. Shantam Awasthi, Advocates For Respondent-State : Ms. Nupur Trivedi, PL. Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 11/11/2025 1. This appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for short, 'Act of 1989') is filed against impugned rejection order dated 25.09.2025 (Annexure A-1) passed in Bail Application No.102/2025 2 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, District Kondagaon, (CG) whereby appellants' application filed under Section 482 of BNSS for grant of anticipatory bail is rejected. 2. Appellant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.35/2025 registered at Police Station – Makadi, District- Kondagaon (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 115(2), 296 of BNS, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(R) & 3(1)(S) of the Act of 1989. 3. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant Ajay Kumar Poyam submitted a written complaint at P.S. Makdi on 19.09.2025 alleging that on 25.08.2025 at about 8:30 p.m., while he was doing online work seated at the Mandi Stadium, the applicant approached and questioned him-"where are you from, what are you doing, name, whose bike is this, is the mobile/bike stolen, why is there no number plate"; that upon the complainant stating his name/address and that the bike's number plate had been given for printing, the applicant allegedly came close and tried to snatch his mobile; that when the complainant took his phone and started to leave on his bike, the applicant allegedly chased him on a scooter, shouting "chor-chor, pakdo-pakdo"; that near the State Bank, one Sandeep Sinha allegedly stopped the complainant's bike from the front, whereupon the applicant allegedly caught the complainant and, without hearing him, hit his head with his hand and slapped him 5-6 times, uttering: "chori karke kahaan bhaag rahe ho, chor saale, 3 Gond, Muria Adivasi, kya ukhaad loge mera, Adivasi anpadh Muria log kya hi kar loge mera," along with mother-sister obscenities; that due to the beating he fainted. On this written complaint, Crime No. 35/2025 was registered at P.S. Makdi under BNS §§ 296, 115(2); and, during investigation, upon it being found that the applicant allegedly addressed 'the complainant as "chor saale, Gond, Muria Adivasi anpadh gawaar" and hurled obscene abuses, the offences under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, 3 (1) (द), 3(1) (ध) were added, and investigation is stated to be continuing. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned court below, while rejecting the application for anticipatory bail, failed to appreciate that the strict statutory bar imposed by Sections 18 and 18A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled. Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is not absolute and is subject to well-defined judicial exceptions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India (2020), has affirmed that an application for pre-arrest liberty can be entertained if the allegations are demonstrably baseless, frivolous, or devoid of prima facie merits, or if the proceedings are a clear abuse of the process of the court and are prima facie mala fide. The present case, it is submitted, overwhelmingly meets this criterion, as the charges are a clear abuse of process and are tainted by evidentiary malice and fabrication. He further submits that the allegations under the SC/ST Act are devoid of the essential criminal intent required to constitute 4 a caste-based atrocity. The prosecution has failed to establish that the dominant motive of the Applicant's action was to humiliate the complainant on the basis of his caste, a necessary mental element for a conviction under the Act. Instead, the Applicant's actions were motivated by a bona fide and security-related suspicion of theft, which is a fact confirmed by the presence of a motorbike without a number plate. The ensuing physical altercation and pursuit, during which the alleged slurs wère uttered, were a spontaneous and frustrated response to the complainant's attempt to flee after resisting identification. This critical distinction fundamentally re- contextualizes the incident, reducing it from a pre-meditated act of atrocity to a spontaneous BNS offense aggravated by derogatory language, thereby making the SC/ST Act charges technically unsustainable at the prima facie stage. He further submits that the prosecution's čase is demonstrably mala fide and appears to be a clear abuse of the legal process: The incideht is alleged to have occurred on August 25, 2025, but the written complaint was lodged with an inordinate and unexplained delay of 25 days, on September 19, 2025. The reason officially provided for this delay, "After family consultation and following a social meeting", casts a severe cloud of suspicion on the credibility of the entire prosecution story, suggesting a deliberate attempt to fabricate grave charges. Furthermore, the First Information Report wrongly claims the place of incidence is 1 kilometer from the police station, when the actual 5 distance is a mere 150 meters. This close proximity means the' altercation was well within hearing distance of the police. The defense's submission that the police were present on the scene immediately and did not register a case under the SC/ST Act provides contemporaneous evidence that the, caste-based element was not the core feature of the original scuffle but was manufactured later under political pressure to ensure the denial of anticipatory bail. He further submits that the learned court below, while rejecting the anticipatory bail application, failed to consider the constitutional mandate of Article 21, which protects the right to life and health. It is therefore, prayed that this Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 25.09.2025 by the learned court below and enlarge the appellant on bail in the event of arrest for the above-mentioned offence, in the interest of justice. 5. Learned State Counsel opposes the anticipatory bail of the appellant. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. Pursuant to order of this Court dated 16.10.2025, victim and his elder brother appeared before this Court through video conferencing (virtual mode) from the DLSA- Kondagaon, District Kongaon (CG) and raised objection for grant of anticipatory bail to the accused/appellant. 8. Relevant portion/para of the order/decision of Sidhan @ Sidharathan (supra) reads as under: 6 “4. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of the wound certificate which is produced alongwith the petition which discloses that the victim himself was under alcoholic influence and the alleged injuries sustained by him is simple in nature, we are of the view that petitioner would be eligible for grant of the relief sought for. It is rather surprising to note that though there was no allegation of any caste slur made by the complainant in his complaint, the jurisdictional police seems to have acted in zeal to incorporate the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ("the Act") which that prima facie swayed in the mind of the High Court to reject the anticipatory bail in view of the embargo placed under Section 18 of the Act. However, the complaint filed at the first instance by the injured would reveal that he not even whispered about any such caste slur made by petitioner accused. Hence, we are inclined to accept the contentions raised in this petition. Hence, the petition is allowed and petitioner is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail by jurisdictional Investigating Officer on such terms and conditions as he deems fit.” 9. On perusal of copy of the FIR, it is crystal clear that on the date of incident, the complainant was sitting in the stadium and doing online work at that time, the appellant reached there and asked to the complainant that where are you from, what are you doing, what is your name, whose bike is this, mobile and bike are of theft, why there is no number plate on the bike on which the complainant told his name and address and also told that your name, meaning thereby the appellant was not aware about the name and caste of 7 the complainant before the incident. Further considering the fact that the incident was occurred on 25.08.2025 and FIR was lodged against the appellant on 19.09.2025, there is delay in lodging the FIR about 24 days. 10. Considering entire facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation, submissions of counsel for the parties, contents of statement of complainant/victim recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C, in which, victim has only made general allegation against the appellant and there is no specifically mention that which type of language used by appellant regarding caste of victim/complainant at the time of alleged incident, particularly that there is no allegation of any caste slur made by the complainant in his complaint/FIR, further considering the order/decision of Sidhan @ Sidharathan (supra), without commenting anything on merits of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the appellant. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Impugned rejection order dated 25.09.2025 (Annexure A-1) is set aside and it is directed that in event of arrest of appellant in connection with the crime in question, he shall be released on bail by the officer arresting him on executing a personal bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Arresting Officer. Appellant shall also abide by following conditions : (i) that appellant shall make himself available for interrogation before the investigating officer as and when required; 8 (ii) that appellant 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 appellant shall not act, in any manner, which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and (iv) that appellant shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to her by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (v) Other condition of Section 482 (2) of the BNSS shall be imposed upon the appellant. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant