1 2025:CGHC:54502 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1995 of 2025 1 - Ajit Kumar Singh S/o Upendra Singh Aged About 31 Years R/o Village- Lodam, Police Station - Lodam, District- Jashpur (C.G.) 2 - Vivek Kumar Singh S/o Jaivardhan Singh Aged About 28 Years R/o Village- Lodam, Police Station - Lodam, District- Jashpur (C.G.) ... Appellants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Lodam, District- Jashpur (C.G.) --- Respondent For Appellants : Mr. Manoj Yadav, Advocate. For Respondent-State : Ms. Priya Sharma, PL. Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 07/11/2025 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 15.09.2025 (Annexure A-1) passed by learned Special Judge 2 (Atrocities Act), Jashpur, (CG) whereby appellants' application filed under Section 482 of BNSS for grant of anticipatory bail is rejected. 2. Appellants are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.42/2025 registered at Police Station -Lodam, District- Jashpur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(1), 115(2), 3(5) of the BNS and Sections 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Act of 1989. 3. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 05.07.2025, a dispute arose between the complainant (Dinesh Toppo) and appellant No.2 regarding dis-connection of electricity line of his dhaba. It is alleged that near the Jharna Hotel, the appellants have abused and assaulted the complainant by fists, in relation to which, complainant submitted a written complaint before the concerned Superintendent of Police against the appellants for offence U/s 296, 351(2), 115(2), 3(5) of the B.N.S. During investigation it was found that complainant/victim belongs to Schedule Tribe community, therefore, the Act of 1989 has been added in this case. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that statement of victim/complainant recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C, in which, victim/complainant has only made general allegation against the appellants that they have used filthy language, however, in his statement there is no specifically mentioned that which type of language used by the appellants. Further, there is no allegation of any caste slur made by the complainant in his complaint/FIR. 3 Appellants have been falsely implicated in this case, they have not committed any offence as alleged against them, hence, they may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 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. Pursuant to order of this Court, on 04.11.2025 victim/complainant appeared before this Court through virtual mode and raised objection in granting anticipatory bail to the appellants. 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 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 4 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 Officer on such terms and conditions as he deems fit.” 9. 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 appellants and there is no specifically mention that which type of language used by appellants regarding caste of victim/complainant at the time of alleged incident, 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 appellants. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Impugned rejection order dated 15.09.2025 (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 officer arresting them on executing a personal bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Arresting Officer. Appellants 5 shall also abide by 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 him/her from disclosing such facts to theCourt 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 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 J.