1 2025:CGHC:40285 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1550 of 2025 1 - Shamim @ Chhotu S/o Naeemuddin, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Village Virendranagar, Police Chowki Dindo, P.S. Trikunda District Balrampur Ramanujganj C.G. 2 - Aslam S/o Fakruddin Siddqui, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Village Virendranagar, Police Chowki Dindo, P.S. Trikunda District Balrampur Ramanujganj C.G. --- Appellants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Trikunda, District- Balrampur Ramanujganj C.G. --- Respondent CRA No. 1554 of 2025 1 - Inamul Haq Ansari @ Sibu S/o Sirajul Haq Ansari Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Virendranagar, P.S. Trikunda, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj C.G. ---Appellant Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Trikunda, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj C.G. --- Respondent For Appellants : Mr. Nishikant Sinha, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. K. K. Baharani, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.08.12 17:15:02 +0530 2 Order On Board 11/08/2025 1. These appeal u/s 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short “the SC/ST Act”) have been preferred by the appellants, CRA No. 1550/2025 filed against the order dated 17.07.2025 passed by the Special Judge, SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Balrampur, Place Ramanujganj (C.G.) in B.A. No. 354/2025 and CRA No. 1554/2025 filed against the order dated 23.07.2025 passed by the Special Judge, SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Balrampur, Place Ramanujganj (C.G.) in B.A. No. 374/2025, whereby the applications filed by the appellants under Section 482 of BNSS apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 40/2025 registered at Police Station Trikunda, District – Balrampur, Ramanujganj (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 3(5), 308(1) of BNS and Section 3(1)(r) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act have been rejected. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, the complainant, Man Singh Khairwar, lodged a report at Police Station Dindo, Thana Trikunda, stating that on 05.07.2025, a meeting was being held at the Gram Panchayat Bhavan, Virendranagar. During the meeting, a dispute arose between Sachiv Jaisingh Gond, Up-Sarpanch Inamul Haq Ansari @ Sibu and others regarding the drafting of a proposal. As the dispute escalated, Bhutnath Yadav began recording a video on his mobile phone. Sami alias Chhotu objected to the video recording and started 3 abusing Bhutnath. Sami alias Chhotu and Aslam then began physically assaulting Bhutnath. When the complainant, Man Singh Khairwar, attempted to intervene and stop the altercation, the accused persons abused him with filthy caste- based slurs, threatened to kill him, and physically assaulted him with slaps and fists. Based on the complainant's report, the police registered an offence under Crime No. 40/2025 at Police Chowki Dindo, Thana Trikunda, under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 3(5), and 308(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 3(1)(d) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that appellant Inamul Haq Anseri @ Sibu (in CRA No. 1554/2025) neither committed nor participated in the alleged offence, and there is no allegation against him of being involved in the fight or abusing the victim. He merely made a proposal as the Up-Sarpanch of the village in his capacity as Panchayat Sachiv. The allegations in the FIR do not prima facie make out an offence under the Atrocities Act against appellant Inamul Haq Anseri @ Sibu. Learned counsel further submits that appellants Shamim @ Chhotu and Aslam (in CRA No. 1550/2025) have also not committed any offence as alleged against them. The counsel argues that the bail applications were rejected by the trial court on the ground that there is a bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act. However, since the case under the Atrocities Act is not prima facie made out, as there is 4 no mention of caste in the FIR or in the statements, anticipatory bail should be granted to the appellants. 4. Learned State counsel, opposing the anticipatory bail, submits that the FIR clearly alleges that appellants Shamim @ Chhotu and Aslam (in CRA No. 1550/2025) were involved in a dispute, physically assaulted the victim, and used filthy caste-based slurs against the victim. Given the gravity of the offence and the bar under Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the appellants are not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the appeals are liable to be dismissed. 5. Today, victim appeared vertually from the concerned DLSA and raised his objection in granting anticipatory bail to the appellants. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Looking to the material available on record and the perusal of the orders impugned, it is evident from the FIR that appellant Inamul Haq Ansari (in CRA No. 1554/2025) has not committed any offence. Therefore, he is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal appeal No. 1554/2025 is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the appellant in connection with aforesaid crime number, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-, with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction 5 of the concerned arresting/investigating officer or the Court concerned, as the case may be, with the following terms and conditions: (i) that the appellant shall make herself/himself available for interrogation/medical test etc. before the concerned investigating officer as and when required; (ii) that the appellant 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 her/him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. 9. 9. However, in CRA No. 1550/2025, there is a named FIR against appellants Shamim @ Chhotu and Aslam, alleging offences of caste-based abuse and physical assault. Consequently, the trial court's rejection of their anticipatory bail applications on this basis is found to be proper. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the nature and gravity of offence and the material collected and available on record against the appellant Shamim @ Chhotu & Aslam, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal No. 1550/2025 is dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Sourabh P.