1 2025:CGHC:57198 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2351 of 2025 Laxminarayan Tiwari @ Chotu S/o Shri Damodar Prasad Tiwari Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Siladehi, P.S. Birra, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. P.S. Ajak, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) --- Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Sahil Sahu, Advocate For Respondent-State : Ms. Binu Sharma, PL. For Complainant : Ms. Kiran Sahu, Advocate (appeared as amicus curiae) Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 25/11/2025 1. Learned State counsel would submit that notice has been duly served upon the Complainant, but no one appeared on behalf of the Complainant. 2. This appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Caste & 2 Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for short, 'Act of 1989') is filed against impugned rejection order dated 16.10.2025 passed in Bail Application No.970/2025 by the Special Judge SC & ST (PA) Act, Janjgir, District Janjgir- Champa (CG), whereby appellant’s application filed under Section 482 of BNSS for grant of anticipatory bail is rejected. 3. Appellant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.10/2025 registered at Police Station – Ajak, District- Janjgir Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 351(2) of BNS and Section 3(1)(r), 3(2)(V-A) of the Act of 1989. 4. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 22.09.2025 at about 08:08 A.M, the complainant called in the mobile of Up-Sarpanch of Vill. Siladehi, P.S. Birra, Dist.- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) and informed him that the electricity of his areas closed and requested him to start the electricity connection then he said I am coming in your area, that the phone call was not disconnected by the Up-Sarpanch and the Up- Sarpanch and present appellant were talking to each other and appellant told him that there is no need to resume the electric supply, it is also alleged that the applicant was having conversation that certain persons belonging to lower class are behaving superiorly, therefore some measures need to be taken, that the call recording of such conversation was done and the same is verified by the witnesses, that hearing the caste based comments the complainant and witnesses felt insulted, therefore the instant 3 complaint was lodged. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the accused/appellant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. In the complaint case, there is no allegation that the appellant has used any abusive language regarding the caste of the victim with intent to humiliate him, therefore, no case under the SC/ST is made out against the appellant. He further submit that in the complaint there is no specific allegation that the appellant/accused has used any abusive language regarding the caste of the victim/complainant with intent to humiliate him in public view. No case under SC/ST Act is made out against the and the appellant/accused because the appellant/accused and the complainant were not present on the spot appellant/accused has not used the alleged word with intent to humiliate the appellant/accused. The offences registered against the appellant/accused under BNS are bailable and the appellant/accused has no previous antecedent. Therefore, it is prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the appellant may be granted anticipatory bail. 6. Learned State Counsel as well as counsel for the complainant oppose the anticipatory bail of the appellant. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. On perusal of the FIR (Annexure A-2), this Court finds that the 4 complainant is a member of the scheduled castes/tribes and the appellant/accused is not a member of the scheduled tribes and the dispute was taken place between the parties regarding supply of electricity. In FIR there is no mentioned that the appellant caused with intent to cause injury, insult or annoyance to the complainant on the basis of his caste, therefore, Section 18, 18-A of the SC/St (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, would not be applicable in this case. 9. 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 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 5 allowed and petitioner is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail by jurisdictional Investigating Officer on such terms and conditions as he deems fit.” 10. Considering entire facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation, submissions of counsel for the parties, contents of statement of complainant/victim recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C, in which, victim has only made general allegation against the appellant, particularly that there is no allegation of any caste slur made by the complainant in his complaint/FIR, 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 appellant. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Impugned rejection order dated 16.10.2025 (Annexure A-1) is set aside and it is directed that in event of arrest of appellant in connection with the crime in question, he shall be released on bail by the officer arresting him on executing a personal bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Arresting Officer. Appellant shall also abide by following conditions : (i) that appellant shall make himself available for interrogation before the investigating officer as and when required; (ii) that 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 6 dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) that appellant 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. (v) The appellant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court. (vi) Other condition of Section 482 (2) of the BNSS shall be imposed upon the appellant. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant