1 2025:CGHC:61137 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 2361 of 2025 1 - Lalit Kumar Yadav S/o Late Sukru Ram Yadav Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Karkata, Police Station Pathalgaon, District Jashpur C.G. 2 - Onkar Yadav S/o Lalit Kumar Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Karkata, Police Station Pathalgaon, District Jashpur C.G. 3 - Vijay Kumar Yadav S/o Lalit Kumar Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Karkata, Police Station Pathalgaon, District Jashpur C.G. 4 - Venudhar Yadav S/o Late Sukru Ram Yadav Aged About 73 Years R/o Village Karkata, Police Station Pathalgaon, District Jashpur C.G. 5 - Devanand Kumar Yadav S/o Venudhar Yadav Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Karkata, Police Station Pathalgaon, District Jashpur C.G. ... Appellants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station - Pathalgaon, Distt- Jashpur C.G. --- Respondent For Appellants : Mr. Aditya Bhardwaj, Advocate For Respondent-State : Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 16/12/2025 1. Pursuant to order dated 13.11.2025, father of the victim appeared before 2 this Court through video conferencing from the Civil Court, Pathalgaon and on being asked, he raised objection for grant of bail to the appellants. His submission is taken on record. 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 29.10.2025 passed in Bail Petition No.235/2025, passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Pathalgaon, District Jashpur (C.G.), whereby appellants’ application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of bail is rejected. 3. Appellants are in jail in connection with Crime No.144/2025 registered at Police Station Pathalgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(3), 115(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3) of BNS, Sections 3(1)(r) & 3(1) (s), 3(2)(v-a) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 4. Case of prosecution in brief is that the complaint lodged by Niranjan Singh, on 24.06.2025 at about 6:00 p.m., the accused persons namely Lalit Kumar Yadav, Omkar Yadav, Vijay Kumar Yadav, Venu Dhar Yadav, and Dev Anand Yadav, all residents of Village Karkata, Police Station Pathalgaon, District Jashpur, were erecting iron poles on the complainant's land for the purpose of constructing a shed to park vehicles. 5. When the complainant came to know of this, he went to the spot and objected to the construction, informing them that the said land is recorded 3 in his name. However, the accused persons did not heed his objection and continued the construction work forcibly. 6. Upon further resistance by the complainant, the accused persons allegedly abused him in obscene and caste-based language, threatened to kill him. 7. The application for anticipatory bail is filed which has been rejected by the learned Special Judge on the ground that there is bar containing in the act learned court below has not considered the fact that there is no such an averment in the complaint which can constitute an offence of special act. Hence this appeal. 8. Learned counsel for appellants submits that appellants have been falsely implicated in this case, they have not committed any offence as alleged against them. He further submits that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case due to personal enmity and ulterior motive. There is no prima facie material to show that the offence under the SC/ST Act is made out against the appellants. The present complaint has been filed to settle a civil or personal dispute and the provisions of the SC/ST Act have been misused to pressurize the applicants. He further contends that the Investigating Officer himself initially treated the matter under bailable offences only, and on 04.10.2025, the applicants were set off under the said bailable sections after due inquiry. However, after a considerable delay, on 07.10.2025, the provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act were added subsequently without any fresh material, clearly demonstrating that the provisions of the Act have been 4 invoked maliciously and as an afterthought. There is an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, as the alleged incident occurred on 24.06.2025, whereas the complaint was filed on 11.07.2025, i.e., after more than 17 days. Such delay creates serious doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution story and supports the defence contention of false implication. He further contends that the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act are not satisfied, as there is no specific allegation of any caste-based insult in public view, nor any intent to humiliate the complainant on the basis of his caste. The alleged abuses were made, if at all, during a land dispute and not with the object of insulting the complainant's caste. He further contended that neither prima facie case has been made out against the appellants nor any alleged offence is made out under the atrocities act and therefore bar under Section 18 is not applicable in the instant case. 9. Reliance has been placed on the order passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Sidhan @ Sidharathan Vs. State of Kerala & Anr. in SLP(Crl.) No.11154/2025. 10. Therefore, it is prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the appellant may be granted anticipatory bail. 11. 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. 12. I have heard counsel for respective parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5 13. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of case, further considering the fact the incident took place on 24.06.2025 and FIR was lodged on 11.07.2025 there is an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. Further considering the fact that at the time of lodging the FIR, offence under the Atrocities Act was not registered against the appellants. The appellants were arrested by the police and the appellants have released from the police station on furnishing of personal bond and subsequently offence under Sections 3(1)(r) & 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v-a) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 added in the charge-sheet, the appellants were arrested. Further considering the fact that the dispute was between the parties with regard to the land and two times demarcation have been done and prima facie found that there is no encroachment done by the appellants on the complainant’s land. Looking to the entire facts of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the appellants. 14. Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment dated 29.10.2025 (Annexure A-1) is set aside. 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 appellant) with one surety in the like 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; 6 (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 the Court 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 appellants shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to her by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (v) Other condition of Section 482 (2) of the BNSS shall be imposed upon the appellants. C.C. as per rules. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant