1 2025:CGHC:58403 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2348 of 2025 1 - Bharatlal Gautam S/o Late Bhagwat Prasad Gautam Aged About 74 Years. 2 - Ramkrishan Gautam @ Ravi Gautam S/o Bharatlal Gautam Aged About 39 Years. Both are R/o Village Kapan, Chowki Naila, Thana Janjgir, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ... Applicants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Chowki Naila, P.S. Janjgir District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.). --- Respondent For Appellants : Mr. Vikas Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent-State : Ms. Nupur Trivedi, PL. Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 02/12/2025 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 2 07.10.2025 (Annexure A-1), 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.721/2025 registered at Police Station - Janjgir District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 3(5) of the BNS and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2) (va) of the Act of 1989. 3. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 16.08.2025, appellants have assaulted the complainant and his younger brother by means of hands, fist and stick/club and also abused them in filthy languages. Due to assault, complainant feeling pain in his wrist, back and head and his younger brother suffered injury on his neck. Based upon report, FIR was registered against the appellants in the alleged offence/crime. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellants have been falsely implicated in this case, they have not committed any offence as alleged them. On the date of incident, brother of complainant went to medical shop to purchase intoxicating syrup and he was inebriated state, he was using filthy language in front of medical shop near the house of appellants, when appellant no.1 objected to it, he started abusing and beating him too, when the appellant no.2 (son of appellant no.1) came to intervene he started beating him too. To save himself from said crime, complainant has lodged false report against the appellants. Appellants have neither 3 assaulted the complainant or his brother nor abused them in filthy language or their caste. The injuries, stated to be suffered by the victim, are simple in nature. Complainant taking the advantage of his caste has falsely implicated the appellants in the instant case. The here is no any independent witness in this case. In the FIR, there is no allegation against the appellants that they have intentionally insulted the complainant or his brother regarding their caste, hence, they may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 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 25.11.2025 victim appeared before this Court through virtual mode and raised objection in granting anticipatory bail to the appellants. 8. Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl) No.11154/2025 (Sidhan @ Sidharathan versus State of Kerala & Anr) has held 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 4 (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.” 9. Considering entire facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation, submissions of counsel for the parties, contents of FIR in which there is no allegation against the appellants that they have intentionally insulted the complainant or his brother regarding their caste, 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 17.10.2025 (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.10,000/- each with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Arresting Officer. Appellants shall also abide by following conditions : (i) that appellants shall make themselves available for interrogation before the investigating officer as and when 5 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 them by the said Court till disposal of the trial. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J.