1 (CRA No. 398 of 2025) 2025:CGHC:13897 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 398 of 2025 1 - Ashwani Kumar Soni @ Ashwani Soni Son Of Late Mata Prasad Soni Aged About 40 Years Earlier R/o Shankar Nagar, Mahasamund, Present R/o New Grih Nirman Mandal Colony, Police Station, Tahsil And District Mahasamund (C.G.) --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Azak, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from the Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. A.N. Bhakta, Advocate along with Mr. Dilesh Kurre, Advocate For Objectors : Mr. Anurag Jha, Advocate For State : Mr. Ankur Kashyap, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 22.03.2025 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘Act of 1989’) assailing the validity and correctness of impugned order dated 10.02.2025 passed in Crime No. 395/2021 registered at Police Station AZAK, Mahasamund ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Digitally signed by ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Date: 2025.03.24 17:02:37 +0530 2 (CRA No. 398 of 2025) for offence punishable under section 385 of the IPC, 1960 and Section 3 (2) (v) (a) of the Act of 1989 by which, learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Mahasamund (CG) has rejected application for grant of anticipatory bail filed by the appellant. 2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that the appellant and other co- accused have published news in news media & news channel to the effect that the complainant does not belong to scheduled tribe category and on the basis of forged caste certificate, the complainant has obtained government job and due to the said news, the complainant is feeling guilty and defamed in the society as well as in his working place. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No. 395/2021 for offence punishable under section 385 of the IPC which is bailable offence and Section 3 (2) (v) (a) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 which is non- bailable offence. He further submits that the provision of section 3(2) (v) (a) of SC-ST Act is attracted only when the offence under provisions of IPC as mentioned in the Scheduled of the SC-ST Act has been committed but a perusal of the aforesaid scheduled the offence under section 385 of the IPC in not included and thus for commission of offence under section 385 IPC, section 3 (2)(v) (a) of SC-ST Act is not attracted, thus under the facts and circumstances of the case the registration of offence under section 3 (2)(v)(a) of SC-ST Act against the appellant is arbitrary and illegal. He further submits that the other co-accused namely, Mayank Gupta and Ashwani Kumar Sinha with similar allegations have been extended benefit of anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 28.11.2022 passed in CRA No. 1585/2022 & CRA No.1666/2022. Therefore, on the ground of parity, this appeal 3 (CRA No. 398 of 2025) may also be allowed and the benefit of anticipatory bail may be extended to the appellant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the investigation is going on therefore at this stage it can not be said that the offences are not made out however, he fairly submits that at present the offences registered against the appellant is under Section 385 of the IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) (a) of SC/ST Act is made out therefore the bail may not be granted to the applicant. However, he is not in a position to dispute that the allegations leveled against the appellant is similar to the co-accused Mayank Gupta and Ashwani Kumar Sinha, who have been extended the benefit of anticipatory bail. 5. Counsel for the objector also vehemently objected the bail application and submits that wrong section has been mentioned in the FIR, it can not said that offence has not been made out. He submits that because of the mistake of the police, the complainant should not suffer, therefore, the application is liable to be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and rival submissions of the party. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, also considering that the co-accused with similar allegations have been given the benefit of anticipatory bail, this Court is inclined to allow this appeal. It is made clear that protection is with regard to offences which are registered at this stage by the police, not otherwise and police would be at liberty to investigate the matter without influence by any observation. 8. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order rejecting bail application of the appellant is set aside. It is directed that the appellant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal 4 (CRA No. 398 of 2025) bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each along with one solvent surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court on the condition that -: (a) he shall make himself available for interrogation by the concerned police officer as and when so required. (b) he 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 them from disclosing such fact to the Court or to any police officer, (c) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, and (d) he shall not involve themselves in any offence of similar nature in future. (e) he shall appear before the concerned Police Officer/Investigating Officer on 08.04.2025. It is made clear that if any of the aforesaid conditions is violated by the appellant, the State would be free to move for application cancellation of bail. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case. Certified copy as per rules. 9. All the pending applications, if any, are disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge @d!t!