1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1217 of 2025 1 - Amar Lal Jayaswal S/o Late Setram Jayaswal Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Haldharpali, P.S. Kedar, Tehsil Sarangarh, District Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.) 2 - Sudarshan Jayaswal S/o Late Setram Jayaswal Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Haldharpali, P.S. Kedar, Tehsil Sarangarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Appellants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House, P.S. Scheduled Caste Welfare District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellants : Mr. Shantam Awasthi, Adv. For State : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 08 / 08 / 2025 1. This appeal has been filed by the accused/appellants under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, against the order dated 12.05.2025 passed by learned Special Judge SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Raigarh (C.G.) in Bail Application No. 351/2025 whereby the bail application filed Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.08.11 10:42:18 +0530 2 by the appellants under Section 482 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 has been rejected. 2. The appellants are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.09/2025, registered at Police Station – Kedar, District-Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and Section 3(2)(v-a) 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 complainant Umesh Bhat lodged a written complaint alleging therein that on 11.01.2025, the appellants abused the complainant and his father, threatened to demolish the construction with a JCB, and assaulted them. Based on this, offence has been registered against the present appellants. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the instant case. He further submits that in connection with the assault perpetrated upon him and his family, the appellant Amar Lal Jaiswal, lodged a written complaint on 12.01.2025 against five individuals, including Umesh Bhat and Gajanan Sidar, for which FIR No. 04/2025 was registered under Sections 115(2), 191(2) and 333 of B.N.S. He next submits that as a counterblast, with a delay of 18 days on 29.01.2025, FIR No. 09/2025 has been lodged against the appellants. He also submits that there is no mention of cast related abuse or any offence under the Special Act. The prohibition of Section 18 of the Special Act does not apply. The 'order in question' of the trial court is not valid and appropriate. Therefore, the appellants may be granted anticipatory bail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the state opposes 3 the anticipatory bail application of the appellants. He submits that the appellant No. 2, Sudarshan Jayaswal, has two criminal antecedents, including one Istagasa. 6. The victim appeared through video conferencing from the concerned DLSA and raised objection in granting anticipatory bail to the appellants. 7. I have 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 finds that merely because offence under Section 3(2)(V)(a) of the Act, 1989 was registered against the applicant, learned court below 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 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 applicant. The learned Court below committed patent illegality in 1 (2020) 4 SCC 727 4 mechanically rejecting the bail application. Order of rejection, therefore, cannot be sustained in law and, therefore, set aside. 9. After hearing 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, caste related allegation is not mentioned, even, the case is not registered under the special act. Further, it is clear that on 12.01.2025, the appellants have lodged FIR No. 04/2025 against the complainant and others, whereas as a counterblast, the FIR No. 09/2025 has been registered against the present appellants after a delay of 18 days on 29.01.2025. 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. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the appellants in connection with aforesaid crime number, they shall be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each, with one surety 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 themselves 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; 5 (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 given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H.L. Sahu