1 2025:CGHC:56077 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2158 of 2025 Bhavesh Shukla S/o Shri Ashok Shukla, Aged About 36 Years R/o House No. 795, Ward No. 65, Gandhi Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellant. versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Saraswati Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.). --- Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Sunil Otwani, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Anamika Singh, Advocate. For Respondent-State : Ms. Priya Sharma, PL. For Objector : Ms. Shubha Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 18/11/2025 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 29.09.2025 (Annexure A-1) passed by learned Special Judge 2 (SC/ST Act), Raipur, (CG) whereby appellant’s application filed for grant of anticipatory bail is rejected. 2. Appellant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.226/2025 registered at Police Station - Saraswati Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 221 & 132 of the BNS and Sections 3(2)(VA) of the Act of 1989. 3. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 19.09.2025, complainant Tanuja Salem, who is a member of a Scheduled Caste and was working as District Sports Officer, Department of Sports and Youth Welfare, Government of Chhattisgarh, was performing her official duties at her office located at Raipur. Around 1:00 PM, the accused Bhavesh Shukla without any prior permission, entered her government office along with his associates and introduced himself as a member of the NSUI (National Students' Union of India) and, thereafter, he and his companions started creating ruckus and disturbance in the office, they misbehaved with the complainant and used caste-based abusive words with the intent to insult and humiliate her in public view, they threatened her to remove her from her post and pushed her subordinate staff, attempting to create obstruction in her official work. The accused and his associates continued using filthy and derogatory caste remarks and after being stopped by others present, left the office premises. Based on her written complaint, FIR was registered against the accused persons. 3 4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that impugned rejection order is contrary the law and facts and same has been passed without properly appreciated of facts and without considering the provision of the law. The essential ingredients to constitute an offence under the Act of 1989 are conspicuously absent. The appellant had no knowledge whatsoever of the complainant's caste or community and the entire incident, as alleged, arose out of a protest concerning public and student issues, which has been given a casteist color by the complainant. The alleged incident took place inside the office/chamber of the complainant and not in a place within "public view". The mere presence of subordinate staff does not satisfy the legal requirement of "public view," which implies that the utterance must be made in a place accessible to and in the presence of the public, the allegation, therefore, do not attract the provisions of offence under the Act of 1989. Appellant has been falsely implicated in this case, he has not committed any offence as alleged against him, hence, he may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 5. Learned State Counsel opposes the anticipatory bail of the appellants. 6. Learned counsel for the Objector raised no objection in granting anticipatory bail to the appellant. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4 8. In cast at hand, it is reflecting from the FIR that appellant has not intentionally insulted the complainant on the ground of her caste; the essential ingredients to constitute an offence under the Act of 1989 are conspicuously absent; the appellant has no knowledge about the complainant's caste or community or there is no mention about the words used by appellant at the time of alleged incident. 9. Considering facts of the case, nature of allegation, submissions of counsel for the parties, particularly the submission of counsel for the Objector that she is having no objection in granting bail to the appellant, contents of FIR and other material/evidence available in the case diary, 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 Annexure A-1 is set-aside and it is directed that in the event of arrest of appellant in connection with crime in question (Crime No.226/2025 registered at PS -Saraswati Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.), he shall be released on bail by the officer arresting him on executing a personal bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Arresting Officer. Appellant shall also abide by following conditions : (i) that appellant shall make himself available for interrogation before the investigating officer as and when required; (ii) that appellant 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 5 facts to theCourt or to any police officer; (iii) that appellant 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. (v) that appellant shall not leave the country without prior permission from the concerned Court. (vi) Other condition of Section 482(2) of the BNSS shall be imposed upon the appellant. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J.