1 / 4 2025:CGHC:56035 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2396 of 2025 Mukesh Narwani S/o Late Harjaslal Narwani Aged About 50 Years R/o Gulmohar Colony, Beladula, Raigarh Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Chakradhar Nagar, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Sabyasachi Bhaduri, Advocate For State /Respondent : Ms. Binu Sharma, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 18/11/2025 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 appellant being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 06/11/2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Raigarh, C.G. in Bail Petition No.1040/2025, 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 he is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.483/2025 ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.11.24 18:12:18 +0530 2 / 4 registered in Police Station Chakradhar Nagar, District Raigarh for offence punishable under sections 296, 299, 302, 352, 3(5) of BNS; Section 3(2) (5) (f) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989; and Section 66 (f)(2) of the IT Act. 3. As per the prosecution case, on 30/10/2025 the complainant Ajay Kumar Bhardwaj lodged a written complaint in the police station that a video was posted by Shivkashi, a member of the Pragatisheel Satnami Samaj, District Raigarh, in the WhattsApp group of his Satnami Community, in which the religious sentiments of the community were hurt by using derogatory and obscene abuses against the revered Baba Guru Ghasidas Ji of the Satnami Community. The voices of some other people are also there in the video who are instigating Vijay Rajput, who is the main accused, to abuse and telling him what abuses to use. On the basis of the above written complaint, an FIR was registered. The Accused Vijay Rajput has stated in the memorandum statement that while making the video, the present appellant and others were telling him what abuses to use, how to use them. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that out of courtesy and goodwill towards the customers, the appellant stopped his vehicle to see if any assistance was required and the main accused Vijay Rajput reached at the spot and handed over his mobile phone to one Amit Ahuja and began using abusive language against the community in question. He would next contend that the appellant has no connection with the accused persons and the scooty number appeared in the CCTV footage 3 / 4 because he stopped at the place of occurrence. He would next contend that the CCTV footage makes it clear that the appellant’s face is not visible and he neither spoke nor provoked any person during the incident. He would next contend that the appellant has been falsely implicated and has not committed any offence as alleged against him and only on the basis of his accidental presence at the spot he has been implicated. He would lastly contend that under the facts & circumstances of the case the appellant is entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and stated that there is a prima facie case made out against the appellant 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 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 Satnami Samaj, which belongs to a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe, the ingredients of the offences under 4 / 4 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/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu