1 2026:CGHC:6620 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2660 of 2025 Sajju Khan Alias Sadakh Khan S/o Safar Khan, Aged About 31 Years Residing At Ward No. 4, Pathan Para, Haji Hanif Colony, Kharsia, Dist. Raigarh C.G. (Real Name, Age, Father Name And Correct Address Of The Applicant Is Not Mention In Bail Rejection Order And Charge- Sheet) ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Jaijaipur, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 05/02/2026 1. This appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is filed against impugned order dated 09.12.2025 passed by the learned 2 Special Judge SC & ST [P.A. Act], District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case under the Atrocities Act No. 52/2025 whereby appellant’s application filed under Section 483 of BNSS for grant of bail is rejected. 2. Since, the victim did not appear before this Court though served, therefore, Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate who is present in the Court is requested to assist the Court as an amicus curiae. 3. Appellant is in jail since 09.12.2025 in connection with Crime No. 101/2025 registered at Police Station- Jaijaipur, Revenue District- Sakti (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 115(2), 126, 296, 351(2), 3(2) of BNS and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act, 1989. 4. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 08.05.2025 complainant namely Chandrakant Ratnakar along with his family members had went to the house of his elder father Shankar Sonwani at Kanshigarh to attend the marriage ceremony in a rented vehicle Swift Dzire bearing registration no. CG 13 AY 9829. On 13.05.2025, after attending the marriage ceremony, he along with his family members, came back to his home at village-Chhal and on 14.05.2025, while he was going to village Kanshigarh along with his family members, he was intercepted near Jaijaipur bazar by Applicants No. 1- Rajkumar and his other companions, and they tried to snatch the key of his vehicle and assaulted complainant Chandrakant Ratnakar hurling caste remark. It was also alleged that co-accused Aaqib Khan and Qureshi Khan 3 pressed his neck. Thereafter, the complainant somehow managed to come to Kanshigarh and as soon as he reached there, there were as many as 10 people in two vehicle Swift Dzire bearing registration No. CG 10 EN 1105 and Baleno bearing registration no. CG 13 AW 1624 who assaulted him by legs, fists and belt hurling filthy abuses and extended life threat. On the basis of written report to this effect, an FIR being Crime No. 101/2025 for offence punishable under aforesaid sections was registered against the appellant at P.S. - Jaijaipur, Revenue District- Sakri (C.G.). 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and they have falsely implicated in the case. The appellant has no direct role to play in the present case neither he has been named in the FIR or the statement given by the complainant further no allegation of caste indicative slurs given by the appellant. He further submits that the appellant has one criminal antecedent in connection with FIR No. 374/17 however he has been acquitted from the case. He therefore prays that the present appellant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 6. Learned State Counsel objected the prayer stating that in the judgment rendered by the Trial Court all incriminating circumstances are against the accused/applicant which connects him with the crime and chain of circumstances are fully linked and completed with each other. 7. Learned Amicus Curiae raised objection to the contentions raised 4 by the counsel for the appellants. 8. Heard counsel for respective parties. 9. As per the prosecution case, the alleged incident took place on 14.05.2025 near Jaijaipur Market, wherein the petitioner and other co-accused are alleged to have restrained the complainant, abused him with caste-related words, assaulted him, and threatened him. The injuries alleged are simple in nature and no grievous or life-threatening injury is reported. The charge-sheet has already been filed on 09.12.2025, and therefore custodial interrogation of the petitioner is no longer required. The impugned order reveals that the learned court below rejected the bail application primarily on the ground that the nature of the offence is serious and there is prima facie evidence against the accused. However, seriousness of the offence alone cannot be a ground to deny bail. 10. At the stage of bail, a detailed examination of evidence is neither required nor desirable. There is no material on record to suggest that the petitioner is a habitual offender, or that he is likely to abscond, tamper with prosecution evidence, or influence witnesses. 11. So far as the offence under the SC/ST Act is concerned, mere allegation of use of caste-related words, without prima facie material showing intentional insult or humiliation in public view, is not sufficient to deny bail at this stage. 12. The learned court below has failed to consider these relevant 5 aspects and has rejected the bail application in a mechanical manner. Consequently, the impugned order suffers from material irregularity and is unsustainable in law. 13. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated 09.12.2025 is set aside. It is directed that appellant- Sajju Khan Alias Sadakh Khan shall be released on regular bail upon his furnishing a bail bond in sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court on the 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. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima