1 2026:CGHC:21175 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 991 of 2026 1. Tanuj Saluja, S/o Ghanshyam Saluja, aged about 43 Years, R/o Bus Stand Basna, Police Station and Tehsil Basna, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 2. Ranbeer Singh Chhabda @ Vicky Chhabda, S/o Lal Singh Chhabda, aged about 44 Years, R/o Jagdishpur Road, Basna, Police Station and Tehsil Basna, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 3. Ghanshyam Singh Saluja, S/o Kartar Singh Saluja, aged about 69 Years, R/o Main Road Basna, Police Station and Tehsil Basna, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 4. Dipesh Mishra, S/o Hemsagar, aged about 31 Years, R/o Village Khemda, Police Station and Tehsil Basna, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ...Appellants versus • State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Basna, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh (Wrongly typed in the Cause Title of the Impugned Order as Deputy Superintendent of Police Ajak Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ) ... Respondent For Appellants : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sandeep Patel, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Laxmin Kashyap, Panel Lawyer. For Objector/Complainant Mr. Mohammad Sohail Khan, Advocate. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal) Order on Board 06/05/2026 AKHILESH BEOHAR Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2026.05.06 17:37:22 +0530 2 1. This appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, “the Act of 1989”) has been preferred by the appellants against the order dated 28.03.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.), in Bail Application No. 299/2026, whereby the application filed by the appellants under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.198/2019 registered at Police Station Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 34 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act of 1989, has been rejected. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant is the owner and in possession of diverted land bearing Khasra No. 1406/1, admeasuring 1076 sq. ft., situated at Village Khemda, Basna, District Mahasamund and she had started construction of her residential house on the said land. It is alleged that on 21.04.2019 at about 08:00 a.m., the appellants, in furtherance of their common intention, came to the spot, abused the complainant in filthy language, intentionally insulted and intimidated her knowing her caste, and also threatened to demolish her house, thereby causing fear. Thereafter, the complainant lodged an FIR on 24.04.2019, on the basis of which, offences under Sections 294, 34 and 506 of IPC were registered against the appellants. 3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present 3 case. He further submits that the alleged incident took place on 21.04.2019; however, the FIR was lodged on 24.04.2019, i.e., after a delay of three days, without any satisfactory explanation. It is further submitted that, as per the FIR, offences under Sections 294, 34 and 506 of the IPC have been registered against the appellants, and no offence under the Act, 1989 has been alleged therein. Thus, on the basis of the contents of the FIR lodged by the complainant, who is a highly educated government teacher, no offence under the Act of 1989 is made out against the appellants. It is further contended that the complainant subsequently filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the learned Special Judge on 19.07.2019, i.e., after a gap of nearly three months from the FIR dated 24.04.2019. Thereafter, her statement was recorded on 15.01.2020, wherein, for the first time, she alleged that the appellants had abused her by referring to her caste. Learned Senior Counsel also submits that the police report dated 20.11.2019 (Annexure P-6) indicates that there was a land dispute between the complainant and the appellants. It is further submitted that the appellants were granted bail by the Court of learned JMFC, Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.) on 13.08.2019. Thereafter, upon framing of charges under Sections 294, 34 and 506-II of the IPC, the case was fixed for prosecution evidence; however, the complainant failed to appear, and consequently, non-bailable warrants were issued against the prosecution witnesses by the learned JMFC on 17.06.2025. Subsequently, the complainant/prosecution filed an application under Section 323 of the Cr.P.C., which was allowed on 14.08.2025, and the case was committed to the Court of the Special Judge. It is thus submitted that 4 the present case is a clear instance of misuse of the provisions of law, instituted with the intent to exert pressure upon the appellants in connection with an ongoing civil dispute between the complainant and appellant No. 3. Since no offence under the Act of 1989 is prima facie made out from the FIR, the appellants are entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail. In support of his submissions, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prithvi Raj Chauhan vs. Union of India & Others1 and Kiran vs. Rajkumar2. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State as well as the objector oppose the prayer for anticipatory bail and submit that a prima facie case under the Act, 1989 is made out against the appellants. It is further submitted that, in view of the bar contained under Section 18 of the Act of 1989, the appellants are not entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, it prima facie appears that the complainant is a well-educated lady and has been working as a teacher in a Government school since 2008. Being a literate person, she was expected to disclose all material facts relating to the alleged incident at the earliest point of time. However, the FIR, as initially lodged, does not disclose any allegation attracting the provisions of the Act, 1989. The allegation with regard to caste-based abuse appears to have been introduced subsequently at a belated stage. There is also a delay of three days in lodging the FIR, for which, no satisfactory explanation has 1 (2020) 4 SCC 727 2 2025 AIR (SC) 4083 5 been furnished. The material available on record further indicates that there exists a land dispute between the parties. It also appears that the allegation under the Act of 1989 has been made as an afterthought. 6. In the matter of Kiran vs. Rajkumar (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in paras 6.1 & 602 which read as under:- “6.1 The absolute nature of bar, however, could be read and has to be applied with a rider. In a given case where on the face of it the offence under Section 3 of the Act is found to have not been made out and that the accusations relating to the commission of such offence are devoid of prima facie merits, the Court has a room to exercise the discretion to grant anticipatory bail to the accused under Section 438 of the Code. 6.2 Non-making of prima facie case about the commission of offence is perceived to be such a situation where the Court can arrive at such a conclusion in the first blush itself or by way of the first impression upon very reading of the averments in the FIR. The contents and the allegations in the FIR would be decisive in this regard. Furthermore, in reaching a conclusion as to whether a prima facie offence is made out or not, it would not be permissible for the Court to travel into the evidentiary realm or to consider other materials, nor the Court could advert to conduct a mini trial.” 7. Similarly, in the matter of Prithvi Raj Chauhan (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para 32, which reads as under:- “32. As far as the provision of Section 18-A and anticipatory bail is concerned, the judgment of Mishra, J. has stated that in cases where no prima facie materials exist warranting arrest in a complaint, the court has the inherent power to direct a pre-arrest bail.” 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, and in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the FIR, as initially lodged, does not disclose any allegation of caste-based abuse nor does it invoke the provisions of the Act, 1989. Even the names of the appellants do not find mention therein with regard to the alleged offence. Consequently, the bar contained under Section 18 of the Act, 1989 is not attracted. 6 Further, considering that more than six years have elapsed since the alleged incident and the trial is likely to take considerable time, this Court finds it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellants. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 28.03.2026 is set aside. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the appellants in connection with the aforesaid crime number, they shall be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned arresting/investigating officer, with the following terms and conditions: (i) that the appellants shall make themselves available for interrogation/medical test etc. before the concerned investigating officer as and when required; (ii) that the appellants shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) that the appellants shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and (iv) that the appellants shall appear before the concerned trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Akhilesh 7