1 / 5 2025:CGHC:50763 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1921 of 2025 • Netu Verma S/o Shri Shankar Verma Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Mahuljhopadi, Police Out Post- Tumbdibod, Thana- Lalbag, District Rajnandgaon C.G. ... Appellant versus • State of Chhattisgarh through the Station House Officer, Police Station- Ajak Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon C.G. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate and Mr. Aniruddh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent- State : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 10/10/2025 1. Appellant has filed this appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “Act of 1989”) for grant of bail, aggrieved by the order passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Rajnandgaon, Dist. Rajnandgaon, C.G. rejecting the anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 of CrPC on 24.07.2025, as he apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No. 01/2025 registered at Police Station- AJAK Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon for offences under Section 376(f), 329(3), 296, 3(5) of BNS and Section 3(1)(d), 3(2)(iii), 3(2)(va) of the Act of 1989. 2. Case of prosecution is that complainant lodged a report in the concerned police station alleging that complainant was informed by his brother that the applicant while doing agricultural activities put fire in the paddy straw lying in the part of field, however, spark fled into the nearby field due to PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 5 which grafted farming and plantation done in two acres of field was also destroyed by fire. When complainant interacted with applicant, he admitted his guilt that when he put fire in his field to destroy paddy straw, inadvertently due to spark fire fled into another field owned by complainant and further that he will compensate the damage, caused to complainant. As even after long time, compensation was not paid to complainant, report was lodged. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was no intention of appellant to put the agricultural field of complainant on fire. He also submits that there was no knowledge of appellant that any damage will be caused to nearby field by fire put by him in his own field for destroying waste paddy straws/ stems and therefore no offence as alleged under the provisions of the Act of 1989 would be attracted. Bail application of appellant was rejected by court below only on the ground that in view of provision under Section 18 of the Act of 1989 application for grant of anticipatory bail is not maintainable. He submits that other offence under BNSS are bailable. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant and would submit that the appeal for grant of anticipatory bail would not be maintainable in view of provision under Section 18 of the Act of 1989. He further submits that police collected mobile phone and the conversation between both the parties have also been recorded. There is transcript of conversation between appellant and complainant in which appellant has admitted that he will compensate the damage/loss suffered to complainant. Upon asking, learned State counsel submits that in conversation there is admission of appellant that the fire jumped in the field of complainant by mistake and he has not put the fire intentionally. 3 / 5 5. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, complainant/ victim appeared before this Court on 06.10.2025 and raised objection in grant of bail to appellant. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 7. From perusal of proceedings available in the case diary, it is appearing that the victim belongs to a member of Scheduled Caste community. The allegation against the appellant in the F.I.R. is that the appellants deliberately and through conspiracy set fire to the field of complainant due to which organic and grafted plantation done by complainant were destroyed in the fire. Learned Trial Court taking into consideration of Section 18 of the Act of 1989 has dismissed the anticipatory bail application of appellant. 8. As far as the maintainability of the bail application is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India and others reported in (2020) 4 SCC 727 had occasion to consider the maintainability of application filed under Section 438 of CrPC, new Section 482 BNSS. It was held as below : “10. Concerning the applicability of provisions of Section 438 Cr.PC, it shall not apply to the cases under Act of 1989. However, if the complaint does not make out a prima facie case for applicability of the provisions of the Act of 1989, the bar created by Section 18 and 18(A)(i) shall not apply. We have clarified this aspect while deciding the review petitions.” 32. I would only add a caveat with the observation and emphasize that while considering any application seeking pre-arrest bail, the High Court has to balance the two interests: i.e. that the power is not so used as to convert the jurisdiction into that under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, but that it is used sparingly and such orders made in very exceptional cases where no prima facie offence is made out as shown in the FIR, and further also that if such orders are not made in those classes of cases, the result would inevitably be a miscarriage of justice or abuse of process of law. I consider such stringent 4 / 5 terms, otherwise contrary to the philosophy of bail, absolutely essential, because a liberal use of the power to grant pre-arrest bail would defeat the intention of Parliament.” 9. Therefore, in appropriate cases, benefit of anticipatory bail could be admitted to the appellant and there is no absolute bar. 10. From the aforementioned facts it is prima facie appearing that there is no material to say that the appellant has committed any offence under the Act of 1989 intentionally with knowledge and therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Court below erred in rejecting the application under Section 482 of BNSS filed by the appellant on the sole ground that it is barred under Section 18 of the Act of 1989. 11. F.I.R. is registered for offence under Section 3(2)(iii) of the Act of 1989 which is for committing mischief by fire or any explosive substance. To attract the aforementioned provision and offence therein there should be intention to cause and knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause damage. From transcript of call record, as read over the State counsel, it is not appearing that appellant intended or was knowing that he put fire in field of complainant to cause damage. In fact in call recorded between appelalnt and complainant it has come that appellant put fire in his own agricultural field to burn paddy straw lying there after harvesting and it accidentally jumped into field of complainant. In the schedule under Section 3(2)(va) offence under Section 436 of IPC is not mentioned. The other offence as alleged in F.I.R. under provisions of Bhartiya Nyay Samhita (BNS) are bailable. 12. So far as merits of the case is concerned, considering the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, submission of counsel for respective parties, discussion made above and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan (supra), I am inclined to allow this appeal for anticipatory bail. 5 / 5 13. Accordingly, appeal is allowed, order passed by learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Rajnandgaon dated 24.07.2025 is set aside and it is directed that in the event of arrest of appellant in connection with the crime in question (01/2025), he shall be released on anticipatory bail by the Officer arresting him on his executing a personal bond in the sum of ₹ 25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned arresting Officer. Appellant shall also abide by the following conditions: (i) that the appellant shall make himself available for interrogation before the Investigation 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 so 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 them by the said Court till disposal of the trial. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) pwn JUDGE