1 2025:CGHC:61731 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2427 of 2025 1 - Mukesh Jha S/o Late Bramhanand Jha Aged About 47 Years R/o Khapri, P.S. Gidhpuri District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 2 - Priti Jha W/o Mukesh Jha Aged About 35 Years R/o Khapri, P.S. Gidhpuri District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 3 - Navina Jha W/o Late Bramhanand Jha Aged About 65 Years R/o Khapri, P.S. Gidhpuri District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Appellants. versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station Gidhpuri, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) --- Respondent For Appellants : Mr. CR Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent-State : Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, PL. For Objector/complainant : Mr. Anand Kujur, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 17/12/2025 2 1. 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 rejection order dated 12.11.2025 (Annexure A-1) passed by learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.), whereby appellants' application filed under Section 482 of BNSS for grant of anticipatory bail is rejected. 2. Appellants are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.145/2025 registered at Police Station -Gidhpuri, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(2), 3(5) of the IPC and Sections 3(2)(v-a) of the Act of 1989. 3. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that on the date of incident, some dispute arose between the appellants and victim/injured person regarding possession of land and, thereafter, accused persons have assaulted the victim by hands and fists and also abused them in filthy languages, due to which, victim injuries. Based upon report, FIR was registered against the appellants for the aforesaid offence/crime. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the case. Both the parties are resident of same village, due to previous enmity, there was simple dispute took place between them with regard to the land. On the date of incident, victim/complainant has started 3 quarreling with the appellants and also committed marpeet with him, in this regard, the appellants made complaint to the concerned police station, but not action has ben taken on said complaint. Victim received injuries committed by the main accused person not by present appellants and injuries are simple in nature. Appellants neither assaulted the victim nor used any filthy language regarding their caste. There is delay in lodging of FIR, which has not been explained properly by the prosecution. Further, there is no allegation of any caste slur made by the complainant in his complaint/FIR. Thus, appellants may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 5. Learned State Counsel opposes the anticipatory bail of the appellants. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. Pursuant to order of this Court, victim alongwith his Counsel appeared before this Court and raised objection in granting anticipatory bail to the appellants. 8. Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl) No.11154/2025 (Sidhan @ Sidharathan versus State of Kerala & Anr) held as under: “4. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of the wound certificate which is produced alongwith the petition which discloses that the victim himself was under alcoholic influence and the alleged injuries sustained by him is simple in nature, we are of the view that petitioner would be eligible for grant of the relief sought for. It is rather surprising to note that though there was no allegation of any caste slur made by 4 the complainant in his complaint, the jurisdictional police seems to have acted in zeal to incorporate the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ("the Act") which that prima facie swayed in the mind of the High Court to reject the anticipatory bail in view of the embargo placed under Section 18 of the Act. However, the complaint filed at the first instance by the injured would reveal that he not even whispered about any such caste slur made by petitioner accused. Hence, we are inclined to accept the contentions raised in this petition. Hence, the petition is allowed and petitioner is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail by jurisdictional Investigating Officer on such terms and conditions as he deems fit.” 9. Considering entire facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation, submissions of counsel for the parties, contents of complaint/FIR, in which, there is no specifically mention that which type of language used by appellants regarding caste of victim/complainant at the time of alleged incident, further considering the order/decision of Sidhan @ Sidharathan (supra), without commenting anything on merits of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the appellants. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Impugned rejection order dated 12.11.2025 (Annexure A-1) is set aside and it is directed that in event of arrest of appellants in connection with the crime in question, they shall be released on bail by the officer arresting them on executing a personal bond in sum of Rs.10,000/- each with one surety in the like 5 sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Arresting Officer. Appellants shall also abide by following conditions : (i) that appellants shall make themselves available for interrogation before the investigating officer as and when required; (ii) that appellants 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 theCourt or to any police officer; (iii) that appellants shall not act, in any manner, which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and (iv) that appellant shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to her by the said Court till disposal of the trial. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J.