1 2025:CGHC:59718 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2563 of 2025 Dhirendra Rathore S/o Devi Singh Rathore, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Ward No. 6, Bazar Chowk, Saragaon District – Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Baradwar, District – Sakti, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Aamir Khan and Md. Farooq Azam, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 09.12.2025 1. The appellants have preferred this Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 234/2025 registered at Police Station - Baradwar, District – Sakti (C.G.) for the offence under Sections 115(2), 221, 224, 296, 351(3) of Bharaitya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, ‘the SC/ST Act’) whereby the appeal filed by the appellant vide impugned order dated 30.09.2025, has been rejected by the learned Special Judge (Atrocities), District – Janjgir-Champa(C.G.). PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.12.11 10:47:34 +0530 2 2. Brief facts of the case is that, the allegation against the appellant is that he abused the complainant, saying how dare you refuse, you bastard, I know you, how can you not sign. He further insulted the complainant with obscene abuses, saying, you are a tribal Bhaina, I’ll show you who I am, and then attacked him with punches. During the intervention, the complainant sustained injuries to his left thumb, head, and face. Hence, this appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the allegations under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act do not, prima-facie, constitute an offence, as the alleged remarks were not made with the specific intent to humiliate or degrade the complainant on the basis of his caste. It is contended that the altercation arose out of a professional disagreement regarding the signing of a utility certificate, and any remarks allegedly made were uttered in the heat of the moment, without any caste-based malice. The invocation of the provisions of the SC/ST Act is argued to be an afterthought, intended to exaggerate the incident and prejudice the applicant’s case. The applicant further submits that there was no premeditated intent to abuse, insult, or assault the complainant. It is urged that the incident occurred spontaneously during a discussion pertaining to official work, and that the applicant’s conduct was not driven by any malicious or discriminatory intent. The allegations of using caste-based remarks or causing grievous harm are stated to be exaggerated and unsupported by corroborative material. The offences alleged under Sections 296, 351(3), 115(2), 221, and 224 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, are either bailable in nature or do not warrant custodial detention at this stage. The allegations under the SC/ST Act are also subject to judicial scrutiny, and bail may be granted in appropriate cases. 3 In Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India (2020), the Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified that the bar on anticipatory bail under the SC/ST Act is not absolute and that anticipatory bail may be granted where no prima facie case is made out. Further, the applicant is having previous criminal antecedents, in which he has been acquitted, a copy of the same has been annexed as Annexure A/3 of this bail application. Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the order passed by the learned trial Court and submits that the learned trial Court, after considering all the aspects of the matter, has rightly dismissed the bail applicantion filed by the appellant, in which no interference is called for. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 6. From the perusal of the order passed by the trial Court, it transpires that the applicant had moved an application for anticipatory bail before the Trial Court under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 along with other offences under Sections 115(2), 221, 224, 296, 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. However, the Trial Court rejected the same on the ground that the application was barred under Section 18- d (2) of the SC/ST Act. “(2) The provisions of Section 438 of the Code shall not apply to a case under this Act, notwithstanding any judgment or order or direction of any Court.” 7. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal has been filed. Learned counsel for the applicant has attempted to justify the maintainability of the anticipatory bail application under the SC/ST Act along with the other BNS offences. However, considering the averments in the FIR, which 4 clearly indicate that the appelalnt allegedly used insulting and abusive words directed at the complainant, it cannot be said that no prima-facie offence under the SC/ST Act is made out. In such circumstances, this Court does not find it a fit case to grant bail to the applicant. 8. Accordingly, the bail application of the appellant namely - Dhirendra Rathore, involved in Crime No. 234/2025 registered at Police Station - Baradwar, District – Sakti (C.G.) for the offence under Sections 115(2), 221, 224, 296, 351(3) of Bharaitya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, ‘the SC/ST Act’), is rejected. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti