1 2025:CGHC:9913 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No.234 of 2025 1. Shahin Bano W/o Moh. Aaftab Khan Aged About 58 Years R/o Subhashnagar, Police Out Check-Post- Tatapani, P.S. Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. 2. Aalam Aara D/o Moh. Aaftab Khan Aged About 28 Years R/o Subhashnagar, Police Out Check-Post- Tatapani, P.S. Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. 3. Hhusn Aara D/o Moh. Aaftab Khan Aged About 31 Years R/o Sakarkoni, Harigavan, District Gadhwa, Jharkhand. ... Appellants(s) versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Out Check-Post- Tatapani, P.S. Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh.. --- Respondent For Appellants : Mr. Rahul Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent-State : Mr. Karan Bahrani, PL. Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 27/02/2025 1. This appeal under Section 14-A(ii) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for short, 'Act of 1989') is filed against impugned rejection order dated 07.01.2025 (Annexure A-1), whereby appellant’s application filed under Section 482 (wrongly mention 483) of B.N.S.S. for grant of anticipatory bail, came to be rejected. 2 2. Appellants are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.213/2024 registered at Police Out Check-Post : Tatapani, Police Station - Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh, for the offence punishable under Sections 190, 191(2), 191(3), 296, 351(2), 115(2), 118(1) of B.N.S and Sections 3(1)(द) (घ) of the Act of 1989. 3. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 30.11.2024, the present appellants along co-accused persons (Moh. Aftab & Afsar Ali) assaulted the complainant/victims by means of Lathi/Danda (stick), Kudal, Fawda (spade) and Eet-Patthar (bricks), due to which, victims suffered grievous injuries. They have also abused the the victim by their caste. Based upon report, FIR was registered against the appellants in the aforementioned offence/crime. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the present appellants have been falsely implicated in this case, they have not committed any offence as alleged against them. The learned Court below has not considered the facts and grounds properly while rejecting the bail application of the appellants. FIR has been lodged by the complainant as a counter blast because one of the accused Alam Aara (appellant No.2) has lodged FIR against complainant (Anup Singh) and other persons in connection with crime No. 212/2024 for offence punishable under Section 118(2), 109, 332 (ख) of B.N.S. Learned Counsel further contended that after death of husband of appellant No.1 (Shahin Bano) with malafie intention to grab the land of Shahin Bano, the complainant alongwith other persons were restraining the present appellants for construction of their house which was allotted in the Pradhan Mantri Aavas Yoyja for which, on 07.10.2024, appellants submitted an application before the 3 Tahsildar, Ramanujganj, even though on 30.11.2024, complainant along with other persons entered in the house of Shahin Bano and assaulted Shahin Bano (appellant No.1) and her daughters (appellant Nos.2 & 3), thereafter, daughter of Shahin Bano lodged First Information Report against the complainant alongwith other persons, which was registered as Crime no. 212/2024. The appellants are house-makers and the incident was not happened on the ground that the complainant belongs to Schedule Tribe Community, the complainant has misused his status for lodging FIR against the present appellants. Hence, it is prayed that appellants may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 5. Learned State Counsel opposing the submission of counsel for the appellants and would submit there is specific allegation against the appellants of committing the aforesaid offence/crime, hence, they are not entitled for grant of bail. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. Victim is appeared before this Court by virtual mode from the concerned DLSA and raised objection in granting bail to the appellants. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2020) 4 SCC 761 held thus: “7. Section 18 of the 1989 Act has been enacted to take care of an inherent deterrence and to instil a sense of protection amongst the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It is submitted that any dilution of the same would shake the very objective of the mechanism to prevent the offences of atrocities. The directions issued would cause a miscarriage of justice even in deserving cases. With a view to object apprehended misuse of the law, no such direction can be issued. In case there is no prima facie case made out 4 under the 1989 Act, anticipatory bail can be granted. The same was granted in the case in question also.” 9. It was also held in Laxmi Narayan Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh (CRA No. 1556 of 2021 on 7 February, 2022 C.G. High Court) that in case where prima facie, it shows that the appellant has a strong case to be contested in his defence benefit of anticipatory bail should be extended, and placed reliance on Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India and others (2020) 4 SCC 727, and was observed as under:- “8. The issue arising for consideration is whether the anticipatory bail application would be maintainable in view of bar under Section 18 of the Act of 1989. This legal issue is no longer res-integra in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India and others (2020) 4 SCC 727 wherein the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the maintainability of application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., in the matter of allegation of offence under the Act of 1989. " 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. 33. I would only add a caveat with the observation and emphasize 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 5 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 classes of 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". 9. Therefore, even though there may be allegations of offence under the Act of 1989, if a case is met out to be exceptional in nature, in exceptional cases, benefit of grant of anticipatory bail could be extended and in such cases the bar under section 18 of the Act of 1989 may not operate.” 10. True, it is that on the date of alleged incident ie 30.11.2024, complainant/victim alongwith other persons went to the place of incident for restraining the present appellants for construction of their house, for which, accused Alam Aara (appellant No.2) has also lodged the FIR against complainant (Anup Singh) and other persons, which was registered, as Crime No. 212/2024 for offence punishable under Section 118(2), 109, 332 (ख) of B.N.S. The FIR lodged against the present appellants by the complainant as a counter blast. 11. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations, submissions of counsel for the parties, particularly the decisions in the matters of Union of India (supra) & Laxmi Narayan Sahu (supra), this Court is inclined to allow this appeal and grant anticipatory bail application to the appellants. 12. Accordingly, appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated 07.01.2025 (Annexure P-1) is set aside. It is directed that in the event of arrest of 6 appellants in connection with crime in question, they shall be released on bail by the Officer Arresting them on their executing a personal bond in sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Arresting Officer. Appellants shall also abide by the following conditions : (i) that appellants shall make themselves available for interrogation before the investigating officer 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 them 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 them by the said Court till disposal of the trial. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J/-