1 2025:CGHC:17576 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 630 of 2025 Vijay Kumar Patel S/o Late Laxman Kumar Patel Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Jamdi Police Station Basna Tehsil Basna District - Mahasamund (C.G.) (Accused) ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Officer In Charge Of Police Station Basna District - Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Palash Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Priya Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 16/04/2025 1. Pursuant to the order dated 26.03.2025, the complainant appeared through virtual mode from DLSA, Saraipali, and raised objection in granting anticipatory bail to the appellant. His objection is taken on record. 2. The instant criminal appeal is preferred under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.05.14 10:58:19 +0530 2 1989, (in short “SC/ST Act”), against the order dated 28.02.2025 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.), in Bail Application No. 127 of 2025, whereby the application filed by the appellant for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 503/2024, registered at Police Station Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence under Section 296 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(2) (va) of the SC/ST Act has been rejected. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 28.10.2024, the complainant lodged a written complaint to the police that the villager Bharatlal Dadsena of village Jamdi organized a religious ceremony in his house and performed Lord Satyanarayan Pooja and at the time of distributing sacred offering (Prasad), the villagers were sitting in row. At that time, the complainant was also there in the row to obtain sacred offering (Prasad). The appellant after seeing the complainant in the row, came out from his place, started abusing the complainant in the name of his caste by saying that he will not eat with the persons belonging to “Ghasia” “Chamra” and slapped him twice by holding his collar. Thereafter, he took his leaf plate of leftover sacred offering (Prasad), threw it to the mouth of the complainant by saying that he has to eat his leftover food and you are entitled for the same kind of treatment. He also abused in the name of his mother. The incident was witnesses by the persons who were gathered in the religious ceremony in the house of Bharatlal Dadsena. He tried to pacify the appellant by saying that all of them are his guests and not to abuse him in the name of his caste and not to assault him, but he 3 did not stop. The incident was witnessed by Ramesh Dadsena, Parsuram Balmate, Bharat Sagar and Harishchandra Sagar. On the written complaint made by the complainant, the FIR has been registered on 28.10.2024 for the aforesaid offences against the appellant, in which he apprehending his arrest. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the offence. The alleged incident is of 05.09.2024, whereas the written complaint was lodged on 08.09.2024, which is more than 1½ month. There is no explanation for delayed lodging of the report. He would also submit that from the contents of the FIR, no offences under the atrocities act is made out against the appellant. He would also submit that merely mentioning of certain words in the FIR, would not sufficient to dislodge the appellant to take benefit of anticipatory bail under the provisions of Section 482 of BNSS, 2023. The appellant is having a good reputation in the locality as well as in the community. The allegation made in the FIR is afterthought. He would also submit that after lodging the report, the parties have entered into compromise and an affidavit has been executed to that effect on 24.12.2024, which is annexed in the present appeal as Annexure A-3, therefore, the appellant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/state opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that from the contents of the FIR, the appellant in clear terms abused the complainant, which falls under the intentionally 4 insults and humiliates the member of a scheduled caste community and therefore, as per the bar created under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, the anticipatory bail application of the appellant is not maintainable. For consideration of maintainability of the anticipatory bail application, the contents of the FIR is relevant, in which the allegation of intentionally insults and humiliation is alleged by the complainant in the place within the public view that too in presence of the villagers. Despite intervention of the host Bharatlal Dadsena, the appellant did not stop and threw his leaf plate of leftover food over the mouth of the complainant by saying that he has to eat his leftover food and you are entitled for the same kind of treatment and said that he will not eat along with the persons belonging to “Ghasia” and “Chamra”, therefore, he is not entitled for anticipatory bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the appeal as well as the case diary. 7. First, it is to be considered the bar of the anticipatory bail application as provided under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act. Section 18 of the SC/ST Act defines that :- “18. Section 438 of the Code not to apply to persons committing an offence under the Act.—Nothing in section 438 of the Code shall apply in relation to any case involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of having committed an offence under this Act. [18A. No enquiry or approval required.— 5 (1) For the purposes of this Act,— (a) preliminary enquiry shall not be required for registration of a First Information Report against any person; or (b) the investigating officer shall not require approval for the arrest, if necessary, of any person, against whom an accusation of having committed an offence under this Act has been made and no procedure other than that provided under this Act or the Code shall apply. (2) The provisions of section 438 of the Code shall not apply to a case under this Act, notwithstanding any judgment or order or direction of any Court.]” 8. In the matter of “Prithvi Raj Chouhan v. Union of India and Others”, 2020 (4) SCC 727, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para 11, 32 and 33 that:- “11. Concerning the applicability of provisions of Section 438 CrPC, it shall not apply to the cases under the 1989 Act. However, if the complaint does not make out a prima facie case for applicability of the provisions of the 1989 Act, the bar created by Section 18 and 18-A(i) shall not apply. We have clarified this aspect while deciding the review petitions. 6 32. As far as the provision of Section 18-A and anticipatory bail is concerned, the judgment of Mishra, J. has stated that in cases where no prima facie materials exist warranting arrest in a complaint, the Court has the inherent power to direct a pre-arrest bail. 33. I would only add a caveat with the observation and emphasis 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 cases, the result would inevitably be a miscarriage of justice or abuse of process of law. I consider such stringent 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. Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act provides that if the offence under the IPC is to be committed “knowing” that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe community. Section 3(2) (va) of the SC/St Act is reproduced hereinbelow:- “3. Punishments for offences atrocities.— 7 2) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,— (va) commits any offence specified in the Schedule, against a person or property, knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with such punishment as specified under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) for such offences and shall also be liable to fine;” 10. Reverting to the facts of the present case, from the perusal of the FIR, it reveals that on the date when the Lord Satyanarayan Pooja was performed in the house of one Bharatlal Dadsena, the villagers were called to take sacred offering (Prasad) and when they were sitting in the row, the appellant came out from his place and started abusing the complainant in the name of his caste by saying that he will not eat with the persons belonging to “Ghasia” and “Chamra” and slapped him twice and further, threw his leaf plate of leftover food over the mouth of the complainant by abusing and filthy language. The persons who present there witnessed the incident and the said incident is occurred in the place within the public view, therefore, there are sufficient ingredients to prima facie comes into conclusion that the complainant was intentionally insulted and humiliated in he place within the public view and thus the appellant is prima facie guilty for the said offence, which makes him dis-entitle to be released 8 on anticipatory bail in view of the bar created under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act. 11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to allow the appeal filed by the appellant and to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail application to him. Accordingly, the appeal fails and hereby dismissed. 12. It is made clear that any observation made in this order is restricted only for consideration of the present appeal. The learned trial court shall decide the case on its own merits without being influenced by any observation made in this order. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved