1 2025:CGHC:61890 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2377 of 2025 1 - Mahendra Kumar Shukla S/o Shri Rajrakhan Shukla, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Ward No.13, Mahua Tola, Village Chainpur, Tahsil- Manendragarh, District : Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S.- AJAK Manendgarah, Distt.- Koriya C.G. (wrongly mentioned as P.S. Manendragarh, Distt.- Koriya, C.G. in the cause title of the impugned order) ... Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Ms. Priyanka Rai, Advocate For State : Mr. Arvind Dubey, Govt. Advocate and Mr. Ajay Kumarani, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order On Board 19-12-2025 1. On 17-12-2025 pursuant to the order dated 19-11-2025, the complainant appeared through virtual mode from Civil Court, Manendragarh and raised objection in granting bail to the appellant. His objection has been taken on record on 17-12-2025. 2. The present appeal under Section 14A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short 'SC/ST Act') has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 02-09-2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Baikunthpur, Dist- Koriya in bail application Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2025.12.19 16:57:48 +0530 2 No. 271/2025 whereby the anticipatory bail application of the appellant has been rejected. 3. The appellant is seeking anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in the offence of Crime No. 140/2025 registered at Police Station- AJAK Manendragarh, District Koriya (C.G.) for the offence under Section 296, 351 (2), 221, 132, 3 (5) of BNS, 2023 and Section 3(1)(r)(s) and 3 (2)(va) of SC/ ST Act. 4. The brief facts of the case is that on 10-08-2025, the complainant, who was working as Constable at Police Station- Manendragarh, was on duty. In between 1 – 1.30, am the present appellant Mahendra Kumar Shukla along with the co- accused came to Police Station and asked to register the FIR against one Rishi Sharma as he was having altercation with him. The complainant asked him to give his complaint in writing, the present appellant and the co-accused started abusing him in the name of his caste and with filthy language and starting beating him by hand and fists. The other Constables present in the Police Station were intervened. On the basis of written complaint made by the complainant, the FIR has been registered in which the appellant is apprehending his arrest. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant is falsely implicated in the offence. The appellant is working as a journalist in the news paper and had gone to Police Station to asked about the status of the complaint made by him regarding quarrel with Aman @ Butai Kewat and Akash @ Biryani. When the complainant evading in registering the FIR, he asked to register the FIR and on that ground the complainant has lodged report against the present appellant. She would further submit that from perusal of FIR, there is no material to attract the provision of Atrocities Act or it can be said that the appellant had intentionally intimates or humiliate the member of Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe community knowingly that. Even if the contents of the FIR is to be taken as 3 it, no offence prima facie under the Atrocities Act is made out and therefore, there is no bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act is attracted. The learned trial Court has not considered a true aspect of the case. The appellant is a reputed person of the vicinity and society and therefore, he may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and have submitted that the appellant has abused the Constable who was working in the Police Station, in the name of his caste and intentionally intimidates and humiliate the Police staff, looking to the seriousness of the offence, he is not entitled for anticipatory bail. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 8. From perusal of the case diary would show that the substantive offfence registered against the appellant are triable by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, but, since the offence under the Atrocities Act has been added, the case is triable by Special Judge (SC/ST Act). 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Prithvi Raj Chouhan Vs. Union of India and others, reported in (2020) 4 SCC 727 has observed in paras 11, 32 and 33 as under:- "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. 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. 4 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." 10. From perusal of the FIR, it appears that the appellant used the word “Adiwasi” along with the other filthy abuse which was made basis for registration of the offence under the Atrocities Act. The complainant belongs to Scheduled Tribe community which commonly knows as Adiwasi in the rural area. 11. Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act reads as under:- “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 for such offences and shall also be liable to fine;” 12. From perusal of the Section 3 (2)(va) of the SC/ST Act and from the allegation made in the FIR against the appellant, there is no ingredients that the complainant was assaulted and abused by the appellant because of he belonging to the reserved category. On the contrary, the appellant had gone to Police Station to lodge report against Rishi Sharma and when the complainant asked them to give written complaint, the altercation occurred. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the complainant does not make out a prima facie case for applicability of Section 3 (1)(r)(s) and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act and therefore, bar created under Section 18 was not applied. Keeping in view, 5 the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Prithvi Raj Chouhan (Supra), the material place in the case diary needs to satisfaction that the complainant does not make out case for applicability of the provisions of the SC/ST Act, the bar created under Section 18 of Atrocities Act shall not apply and in appropriate cases of exceptional nature, benefit of anticipatory bail could be extended to the applicant. Therefore, the present case in the considered opinion of this Court is of exceptional nature and within the four corner of the category of cases where benefit of anticipatory bail can be granted, despite bar under Section 18 of the Atrocities Act. 13. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed, the impugned order dated 02-09-2025 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Baikunthpur, Dist- Koriya in bail application No. 271/2025 is set aside. 14. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the appellant in connection with the aforesaid offence, he shall be released on bail by the officer arresting him on furnishing a personal bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Arresting Officer. The appellant shall also abide by the following conditions:- i. that the appellant shall make himself available for interrogation before the investigating officer as and when required; ii. that the appellant 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; iii. that the appellant shall not act, in any manner, which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and iv. that the appellant shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. 15. 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 6 on its own merits without being influenced by any observation made in this order. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Aadil