1 2025:CGHC:30696 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1095 of 2025 1 - Mohd. Aaftab S/o Gyasudin Aged About 36 Years R/o Subhashnagar, Police Out Check-Post - Tatapani, P/s Ramanujganj, Distt. Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.), Permanent Address - Dudhval, P/s Ranka, Distt - Garhwa (Jharkhnd) 2 - Shekh Afsar Ali S/o Shokat Khan Aged About 34 Years R/o Subhashnagar, Police Out Check- Post - Tatapani, P/s Ramanujganj, Distt. Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) Permanent Address - Darmi, P/s Garhwa, Distt. - Garhwa (Jharkhnd) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Out Check-Post - Tatapani, P/s Ramanujganj, Distt.- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Shri Rahul Mishra, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Soumitra Kesarwani, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 04/07/2025 This appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.07.07 11:41:21 +0530 2 “Special Act”) has been filed against the order dated 02.05.2025 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Balrampur, District Ramanujganj whereby the application filed under Section 482 of BN for grant of anticipatory bail was rejected. 2. The appellants are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.213/2024 registered at police station Police out checkpost Tatapani, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 190, 191(2), 191(3), 296, 351(2), 115(2) and 118(1) of BNS and Section 3 (1)(n) (/k) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. 3. Case of the prosecution in brief is that a written complaint was made by the complainant namely Anup Singh alleging that on 30.11.2024, the appellants along with Shahin Bano, Aalam Aara, Husn Aara were constructing a house on the land of the complainant and when he reached their along with his family members to stop the construction work, the accused/appellants abused and committed maar peeth with them with lathi, club, spade, bricks and stones. Consequently, FIR was registered against the appellants and co- accused persons as stated above. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the case. It is submitted hat the learned trial court has not considered the facts and grounds properly while rejecting the bail application of the appellants. There was a case and counter case between the complainant as well as the appellants and the FIR lodged against the complainant and other persons is registered as Crime No. 212/2024 for the offence punishable under Sections 118(2),109,332 ([k) of BNS. He further submits that 3 similarly placed co-accused persons have been granted bail by this Court in Cr.A. No. 234/2025 vide order dated 27.02.2025 and therefore the present appellants may also be granted the benefit. 5. On the other hand, counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that the appellant No.2 has criminal antecedent against him in connection with Crime No. 209/2020 for the offences under Sections 188,414 and 34 IPC, Section 21 of the Jharkhand Mines and Mineral Regulation of Development Act 1957 and Sections 53,54,04 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rule 2004. 6. Complainant appeared through video conferencing from the concerned DLSA and has raised objection. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Union of India Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others (2020) 4 SCC 761 held as under: “Section 18 of the Act of 1989 has been enacted to take care of an inherent deterrence and to instil a sense of protection amongst members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It is submitted that any dilution of the same would shake the very objective of the mechanism to prevent the offences of atrocities. The directions issued would cause a miscarriage of justice even in deserving cases. With a view to object apprehended misuse of the law, no such direction can be issued. In case there is no prima facie case made out under the Act of 1989, anticipatory bail can be granted. The same was granted in the case in question also.” It was also held in Laxmi Narayan Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh (Cr.A. No. 1556 of 2021 on 7th February 2022) that in 4 case where prima facie it shows that the appellant has a strong case to be contested in his defence benefit of anticipatory bail should be extended and placed reliance on Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs. Union of India and Others (2020) 4 SCC 727 and has observed as under : “The issue arising for consideration is whether the anticipatory bail application would be maintainable in view of bar under Section 18 of the Act of 1989. This legal issue is no longer res-integra in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India and others (2020) 4 SCC 727 wherein the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the maintainability of application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., in the matter of allegation of offence under the Act of 1989. "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. 33. 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 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, even though there may be allegations of offence under the Act of 1989, if a case is met out 5 to be exceptional in nature, in exceptional cases, benefit of grant of anticipatory bail could be extended and in such cases the bar under section 18 of the Act of 1989 may not operate.” It is true that on the date of incident ie. 30.11.2024, complainant/victim along with his family members went to the place where the appellants were constructing their house and tried to restrain them and on account of which there was maar peeth between them and a case and counter case was registered by the appellants and the complainant. Since it is a civil dispute and the complainant ought to have agitated the same before the Civil Court but instead he had tried to obstruct the appellants from construction of their house, similarly placed co-accused persons have been granted bail by this Court and therefore the appellants may also be granted similar benefit. Thus, looking to the nature of allegations against the appellant, in particular the decisions in the matter of Union of India (supra) and Laxmi Narayan Sahu (supra), this Court is inclined to allow this appeal and grant anticipatory bail to the appellants. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated 02.05.2025 is set aside. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the appellants’ in connection with the aforesaid offence, they shall be released on bail on their executing a personal bond in sum of Rs. 10,000/- each with one surety to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The applicants shall also abide by the following conditions : (i) that the appellants shall make themselves available for interrogation before the concerned investigating officer as and when required, (ii) that they shall not, directly or indirectly, make any 6 inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer; (iii) that they shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and (iv) that they shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.07.07 11:40:47 +0530