1 2025:CGHC:13090 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Order Reserved on 12.03.2025 Order delivered on 19.03.2025 CRA No. 340 of 2025 1 - Pawan Agrawal S/o Bihari Lal Agrawal Aged About 56 Years R/o Bazar Mohalla, Katghora, Tehsil - Katghora, Distt. - Korba Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Katghora, Korba, Distt. Korba Chhattisgarh ...Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate. For Respondent-State : Ms. Sunita Sahu, Panel lawyer For Amicus Curaie : Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma CAV Order 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 05.02.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Korba whereby appellant’s application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), for grant of anticipatory bail is rejected. ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.03.19 17:03:54 +0530 2 2. Appellant is alleged to be an accused in connection with Crime No.46/2025 registered at Police Station – Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh, for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(r) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that one written complaint has been lodged by the complainant before the SHO, Police Station Katghora stating therein that on 31/01/2025 at about 04.00 PM in the meeting hall of the office of SDM the Returning Officer was giving information regarding instructions to use EVM machine to all the candidates and their agents belonging to different political parties. During such training session the accused has made a comment /statement that don’t teach us, we are not Gond Gawar, we are urban residents. Thereby the accused tried to hurt the feelings of the Schedule Castes or Schedule Tribes community. Thereafter, on the basis of the said complaint, an FIR was registered against the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant apprehending his arrest had filed an application for grant of anticipatory bail before the Special Judge SC/ST (P.A.) Act which was rejected by the impugned order. Hence, this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case and his version has been exaggerated by inserting the word Gond Ganwar, whereas the appellant had stated that Dhor- Ganwar. He would next contend that the intention of the appellant was not to hurt any group and a simple statement is being tried to give a colour of offence so as to implicate the appellant just to harass him. He would place reliance in the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs. Union of India & Ors. {(2020) 4 SCC 727} and 3 would submit that the benefit of anticipatory bail could be granted notwithstanding statutory bar under Section 18 of the Act, 1989. He would lastly pray that the appellant may be released on anticipatory bail in the interest of justice. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellant. 6. Learned Amicus Curiae would contend that perusal of the FIR would show that the appellant has allegedly used the word Gond-Ganwar with a view to abuse and insult the Gond Community during the training session imparted by the Returning Officer where the candidates /representatives from various parties were present. He would next contend that when the offence as alleged above is not made out then the bar of Section 18 (2) of the Act, 1988 would not come into play. 7. Heard counsel for respective parties, perused the record with utmost circumspection. 8. Section 3 (1) (r) of the Act, 1989 reads as under;- Section 3(1) in The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989:- (1)Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,— xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (r)intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled 4 Tribe in any place within public view; 9. The Supreme Court in the matter of Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand {(2020) 10 SCC 710} has held thus :- 13. The offence under Section 3 (1) (r) of the Act would indicate the ingredient of intentional insult and intimidation with an intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. All insults or intimidations to a person will not be an offence under the Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The object of the Act is to improve the socio-economic conditions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes as they are denied number of civil rights. Thus, an offence under the Act would be made out when a member of the vulnerable section of the Society is subjected to indignities, humiliations and harassment. The assertion of title over the land by either of the parties is not due to either the indignities, humiliations or harassment. Every citizen has a right to avail their remedies in accordance with law. Therefore, if the appellant or his family members have invoked jurisdiction of the civil court, or that respondent No.2 has invoked the jurisdiction of the civil court, then the parties are availing their remedies in accordance with the 5 procedure established by law. Such action is not for the reason that respondent No.2 is member of Scheduled Caste. 18. Therefore, offence under the Act is not established merely on the fact that the informant is a member of Scheduled Caste unless there is an intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the reason that the victim belongs to such caste. In the present case, the parties are litigating over possession of the land. The allegation of hurling of abuses is against a person who claims title over the property. If such person happens to be a Scheduled Caste, the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act is not made out. 10. Further, Supreme Court in the matter of Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs. Union of India AIR 2020 Supreme Court 1036 held that bar created by Sub section 18 and Section 18A against grant of anticipatory bail in case of atrocity against SC and ST shall not apply unless prima facie is made out- However in case of misuse of provisions Court can quash the cases to prevent misuse on settled parameters. 11.In the instant case the appellant has not stated the said word to any particular person, his intention was only to establish that he knows the use of EVM machine and he has not targeted a particular person to humiliate him or to hurt the feelings of any group. Therefore, the bar of Section 18(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act) would not be applicable in this case. 6 12.Considering entire facts and circumstances of case, nature of allegations, submission of counsel for appellant, there is no any other previous criminal antecedent against the appellant, I am inclined to allow this appeal. 13. Accordingly, appeal is allowed. Impugned rejection order 05.02.2025 passed by Special Judge, Korba (Annexure A-1) is set aside. It is directed that in the event of arrest by the Police Officer appellant shall be released on bail upon his furnishing a bail bond in sum of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Arresting officer on the following conditions that:- a) Appellant shall appear before trial Court regularly on each and every date, unless exempted from appearance. b) Appellant shall not, in any manner, tamper with the prosecution witnesses. c) Appellant shall in any manner will not threaten the complainant of the case. d) Appellant will give his full co-operation whenever the Police Officer will ask him to come for inquiry. e) Appellant in any manner will take full participation in resolving the case and will not ask for unnecessary adjournment. 14. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 15. Before parting with the case, this Court highly appreciates the valuable assistance rendered by the Amicus Curiae. Sd/- SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge ashu