1 2025:CGHC:57197 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 2362 of 2025 Deepak Soni S/o Babu Lal Soni Aged About 29 Years R/o Kukurda P.S. Chakradhar District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Chakradharnagar, District- Raigarh (C.G.) --- Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent-State : Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy. GA Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 25/11/2025 1. Pursuant to order dated 13.11.2025, victim appeared through virtual mode from the DLSA Raigarh and raised objection for grant of bail to the applicant. 2. 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 judgment dated 24.09.2025 (Annexure A-1) passed 2 by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) in B.A. No.878/2025, whereby appellant’s application filed under Section 483 of BNSS for grant of bail is rejected. 3. Appellant is in jail since 22.09.2025 in connection with Crime No.417/2025 registered at Police Station – Chakradharnagar, District Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 79 of BNS, Section 67 of the IT Act and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 4. As per the prosecution story on the complainant lodged first information report alleging that she is a teacher and had been receiving calls from unknown people and was subjected to obscene language. On contacting one of the mobile number holder, it was told that one whatsapp chat group was created and in that group victim's mobile number was sent and in that whatsapp group the users used to send screenshot of victim's chat. Later on it was found that the mobile number holder is the applicant. Victim informs the same to her husband and office staff. Therefore aforesaid offences have been registered against the applicant. 5. During the course of investigation the police had collected the evidence and found that the prosecutrix belongs to the Scheduled caste and therefore added under the same crime number offence U/s 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled caste and Scheduled tribes act, 1989. 6. Learned counsel for appellant submits that appellant has been falsely 3 implicated in this case, he has not committed any offence as alleged against him. He further submits that from the evidence and other materials on record, there is nothing to suggest that the offence was committed by the appellant only on the ground that the prosecutrix belongs to the Scheduled caste. Even if the entire story of the prosecution, as reflected from the allegation of prosecutrix is taken on its face value, prima facie case under section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled caste and Scheduled tribes act is not made out against the appellant and therefore in such a case appellant is entitled to grant of bail. It is submitted that perusal of the impugned order not in dispute that initially the FIR against the appellant has been registered for offence under Section 79 of BNS 67 of IT Act on the report made by the prosecutrix and the Section 79 of BNS is Bailable offence and also punishment of offence U/s 67 of I.T. maximum is 3 years, as per the Schedule of BNSS with maximum three year punishment is bailable. The complainant herself has stated that there was a whatsapp group which itself shows that there were more than one person involved in the alleged offence but the complainant has falsely implicated the present applicant only. From the evidence and other materials on record, there is nothing to suggest that the offence was committed by the appellant only on the ground that the prosecutrix belongs to the Scheduled caste. It is most respectfully submitted that there is no material against the present appellant which falls under section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled caste and Scheduled tribes act and there is no direct evidence available on record that, the appellant has committed any offence. The appellant is in jail since 4 22.09.2025 and it will take time for trial to be concluded, the Court may kind enough to consider the case of appellant for grant of bail. 7. Learned State Counsel opposed the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the order passed by the trial Court is just and proper needs no interference. 8. I have heard counsel for respective parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 9. Considering entire facts and circumstances of the case and submission made by counsel for the parties. Further considering that the appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 79 of BNS, Section 67 of the IT Act which are bailable offence while the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is non bailable offence and charge sheet has not been filed yet and the appellant is in jail since 22.09.2025, I am inclined to allow this appeal. 10. Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment dated 24.09.2025 (Annexure A-1) passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) in B.A. No.878/2025 is set aside. It is directed that appellant shall be released on regular bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court on the conditions that:- a) Appellant shall appear before trial Court regularly on each and every 5 date, unless exempted from appearance. b) Appellant shall not, in any manner, tamper with the prosecution witnesses. C.C. as per rules. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant