1 2025:CGHC:56052 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2272 of 2025 Jaswant Jaiswal S/o Subhash Chandra Jaiswal Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Sarbahra, Tahsil Pendraroad District- Gaurela - Pendra - Marwahi (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Gaurela District- Gaurela Pendra - Marwahi (C.G.) --- Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Bharat Lal Dembra, Advocate For Respondent-State : Ms. Binu Sharma, PL. 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 15.10.2025 (Annexure A-1) passed in Bail Application 2 No.2181/2025 passed by Special Judge (Atrocities), District Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, (CG) whereby appellants' application filed under Section 482 of BNSS for grant of anticipatory bail is rejected. 2. Appellant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.271/2025 registered at Police Station – Gaurela, District- Gaurela - Pendra - Marwahi (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 115(2), 296, 351(3), 121(1) of BNS, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(R) & 3(2)(V) of the Act of 1989. 3. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that complainant lodged a report alleging that he is posted as Sub Engineer in Water Resources Department and posted at subdivision Pendraroad. On 30.09.2025, at about 12 O’clock when he reached to office that the appellant was present and he wants to snap photos of his office and colony and further the appellant has demanded mobile number of Executive Engineer of Division Office and thereafter he refused to provide the number and some hot talk took place between them and accordingly report was lodged. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has also lodged a report against the complainant but the police has refused to register FIR against the complainant. The appellant is a civil contractor and with a view to personal dispute, false report has been lodged by the complainant. He further contended that neither prima facie case has been made out against the appellant nor any alleged offence is made out under the atrocities act and therefore 3 bar under Section 18 is not applicable in the instant case. 5. Reliance has been placed on the order passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Sidhan @ Sidharathan Vs. State of Kerala & Anr. in SLP(Crl.) No.11154/2025 6. Therefore, it is prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the appellant may be granted anticipatory bail. 7. Learned State Counsel opposes the anticipatory bail of the appellant. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 9. Pursuant to order of this Court dated 06.11.2025, victim/complainant appeared before this Court and no objection has been raised for grant of anticipatory bail to the accused/appellant. 10. On perusal of the FIR (Annexure A-2), this Court finds that the complainant is a member of the scheduled tribes and the appellant/accused is not a member of the scheduled tribes and the dispute was taken place between the parties in the office of the complainant regarding demand of mobile number of the higher authority by the appellant from the complainant. In FIR there is no mentioned that the appellant caused with intent to cause injury, insult or annoyance to the complainant on the basis of his caste, therefore, Section 18, 18-A of the SC/St (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, would not be applicable in this case. 11. Relevant portion/para of the order/decision of Sidhan @ 4 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 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.” 12. 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 appellant and there is no specifically mention that which type of language used by appellant regarding caste of victim/complainant at 5 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 appellant. 13. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Impugned rejection order dated 15.10.2025 (Annexure A-1) is set aside and it is directed that in event of arrest of appellant in connection with the crime in question, 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 facts to the Court 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) The appellant shall not leave India without prior 6 permission of the Court. (vi) Other condition of Section 482 (2) of the BNSS shall be imposed upon the appellant. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant