1 2025:CGHC:61500 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2567 of 2025 1 - Baijnath Prasad Gupta S/o Ramdev Sao Aged About 63 Years R/o Village Kadiya, Post Kerta, P.S. Chalgali District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Sheela Gupta W/o Baijnath Prasad Gupta Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Kadiya, Post Kerta, P.S. Chalgali District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) 3 - Sajjan Kumar Gupta S/o Nandlal Gupta Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Kadiya, Post Kerta, P.S. Chalgali District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) 4 - Smt. Anita Gupta W/o Sajjan Kumar Gupta Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Kadiya, Post Kerta, P.S. Chalgali District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) ...Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, P.S. Chalgali, District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) ----Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Pratyaksh Sharma, Advocate. For State : Mr. Nupur Trivedi, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 17.12.2025 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 19.11.2025 (Annexure A-1) passed by learned Special Judge, SC Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.12.20 13:19:21 +0530 2 & ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act), Balrampur Ramanujganj (CG) whereby application of the appellant filed under Section 482 of BNSS for grant of anticipatory bail is rejected. 2. Appellant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 77/2025 registered at Police Station – Chalgali District Balrampur Ramanujganj (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 115(2), 296, 3(5) and 351(2) of BNS and Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1) (s) of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that In the present case, the complainant Sukhdev Kodaku lodged a report at Police Station Chalgali to the effect that on 12.10.2025 at about 1:00 PM, in Village Kadiya, he was excavating soil from the land situated near the house of Krishna Gupta with the help of labourers for the purpose of earthwork and was loading the same into a tractor. At that time, the applicants/accused namely Baijnath Gupta, Sheela Gupta, Sajjan Gupta and Anita Gupta, acting in furtherance of their common intention, objected to the loading of soil. It is alleged that Baijnath Gupta abused the complainant by hurling caste-based and obscene abuses and also extended threats to his life. It is further alleged that the accused persons pushed the complainant, causing him to fall on the ground, as a result of which the complainant felt threatened and frightened. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated due to a petty dispute relating to excavation of soil near the house of one Krishna Gupta. It is contended that the entire prosecution story, even if taken at its face value, does not 3 disclose any pre-meditated or intentional act so as to attract the stringent provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The allegations are general and omnibus in nature and no specific overt act has been attributed to the present appellant except vague assertions. The appellant has no criminal antecedents and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence or influencing the witnesses. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the appellant prays that the present appeal be allowed, the impugned order dated 19.11.2025 be set aside, and the appellant be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 77/2025. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon order/decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in SLP (Crl) No.11154/2025 (Sidhan @ Sidharathan versus State of Kerala & Anr). 5. Learned State Counsel opposes the anticipatory bail of the appellants. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. In pursuance of the notice, today the victim present before this Court through DLSA Balrampur and he has raised no objection in releasing the appellant on bail. 8. Relevant portion/para of the order/decision of Sidhan @ Sidharathan (supra) reads 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 4 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 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 OfÏcer on such terms and conditions as he deems fit.” 9. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, the role attributed to the present appellant, and the fact that the dispute appears to have arisen out of a local issue relating to excavation of soil, and it is also significant that the victim, who is present before this Court through DLSA, Balrampur, has raised no objection to the release of the appellant on bail, without commenting on the merits of the case and taking into account the principles governing the grant of anticipatory bail, this Court finds that the impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge rejecting the application deserves to be interfered with and I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the appellants. 5 10.Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Impugned rejection order dated 19.11.2025 (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 ofÏcer arresting them on executing a personal bond in sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Arresting OfÏcer. Appellants shall also abide by following conditions: (i) that appellants shall make themselves available for interrogation before the investigating ofÏcer 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 the Court or to any police ofÏcer; (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 Jyoti