1 / 4 2025:CGHC:54715 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2010 of 2025 1 - Rajkumar Mishra S/o Ramkailash Mishra Aged About 43 Years 2 - Abhishek Mishra S/o Rajkumar Mishra Aged About 22 Years Both the above R/o Ward No. 38, Tendudipa, Raigarh Tahsil And District - Raigarh (C.G.) 3 - Shani Dev Mishra S/o Om Prakash Mishra Aged Around 23 Years R/o House No. 76, Near Sonu Muda Lake, Dewarpara Tendudipa, Raigarh Tahsil And District- Raigarh (C.G.) ...Appellants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Jaijaipur Revenue District - Sakti (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellants : Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate For State /Respondent : Ms. Binu Sharma, PL For Complainant : Mr. Anchal Kumar Matre, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 10/11/2025 1. The instant appeal under Section 14-A (2) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 has been filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 06/09/2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocities Act) Janjgir, Judicial District Janjgir-Champa, in Bail Application No.795/2025, whereby the application under Section 482 of B.N.S.S. of the appellant has been rejected. 2. The appellant has preferred this appeal for grant of anticipatory bail as ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.11.14 15:22:16 +0530 2 / 4 they are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.101/2025 registered in Police Station Jaijaipur, Revenue District Sakti (C.G.) for offence punishable under sections 115(2), 126, 296, 3(5), 351(2) of BNS and Sections 3 (1) (r) & 3 (1) (s) (wrongly mentioned as 3(1) (R-S)) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. 3. As per the prosecution case, on 08/05/2025 complainant namely Chandrakant Ratnakar along with his family members had went to the house of his uncle (Bade Papa) Shankar Sonwani at Kanshigarh to attend the marriage ceremony in a rented vehicle Swift Dezire bearing Registration No.CG-13-AY-9829. On 13/05/2025, after attending the marriage ceremony, he along with his family members, came back to his home at Village Chhal and on 14/05/2025, while he was going to village Kanshigarh along with his family members, he was intercepted near Jaijaipur Bazar by Applicant No.1- Rajkumar and his other companions and they tried to snatch the key of his vehiclee and assaulted complainant Chandrakant Ratnakar hurling caste remark. It was also alleged that the co-accused Aaqib Khan and Qureshi Khan pressed his neck. Thereafter, the complainant somehow managed to come to Kanshigarh and as soon as he reached there, there were already 10 people were present who assaulted him by legs, fists and belt and hurled filthy abuses and extended life threat. Thereafter, on the basis of the written complaint the FIR was registered against the appellants. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the appellant No.1 3 / 4 Rajkumar Mishra went to search the missing vehicle Maruti Car No. CG-13-AV-9829 of his relative Pawan Ojha, which was found with the complainant and upon inquiring about the vehicle, the complainant party entered into quarrel with the appellants. He would next contend that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Prathvi Raj Chouhan Vs. Union of India {(2020) 4 SCC 727} has held that the bar under the Section 18 of the S.C. S.T. Act is not absolute and if the complaint does not make out a prima facie case for applicability of the provisions of the S.C. S.T. Act, 1989. He would also place reliance on the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mahmood Ali & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2023 SCC Online 950 and would submit that if the complaint is frivolous and vexatious the Court can look into the same. He would lastly contend that under the facts & circumstances of the case the appellants are entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the complainant oppose the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and stated that there is a prima facie case made out against the appellants under the provisions of the Act, 1989. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 7. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the record, this Court finds that the allegations made in the FIR, on their face, disclose commission of offences punishable under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. At this stage, the Court 4 / 4 is required to examine only the prima facie nature of the accusation, and not to conduct a detailed appreciation of evidence. 8. In view of the specific averments in the FIR attributing intentional insult, humiliation and intimidation to the complainant, who belongs to a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe, the ingredients of the offences under the Act cannot be said to be absent. Consequently, the statutory bar contained in Section 18 and Section 18-A of the SC/ST Act, which expressly prohibit the grant of anticipatory bail where a prima facie case under the Act is made out, becomes operative. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that once the allegations prima facie attract the provisions of the Act, the Court is precluded from exercising jurisdiction for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, as the case is clearly hit by the embargo of Section 18 / 18-A, this Court is not empowered to grant anticipatory bail. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 10. Office is directed to sent a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. SD/- SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu