1 2026:CGHC:8418 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 320 of 2026 Mukarram Alam S/o Mehfuz Alam Aged About 28 Years R/o Masjid Para, Bagicha, Jashpur, Distt. Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Bagicha, Distt. Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Syed Ishhadil Ali, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Richa Pandey, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 17/02/2026 1. This appeal u/s 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short “the SC/ST Act”) has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 20.01.2026 passed by the Special Judge, SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Jashpur District – Jashpur (C.G.) in B.P. No.07/2026 whereby the application filed by the appellant under Section 482 of BNSS apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.301/2025 registered at Police Station – Bagicha District – Jashpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.02.18 14:47:11 +0530 2 under Sections 296, 351(2) 115(2) & 3(5) of the BNS and Sections 3(1) (द) & 3(1)(ध) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, has been rejected. 2. The case of prosecution, in brief, is that, the complainant, Sukhnath Sai, lodged a written complaint at Police Station Bagicha alleging that the accused, Mukarram Alam, unlawfully removed and demolished the farm boundary (medh) of the complainant’s agricultural field during the night and illegally erected a pillar by encroaching upon his land. When the complainant objected, another accused, Naseem, along with his family members, intentionally assaulted him, abused him in filthy and obscene language and criminally intimidated him by threatening to cause his death. It is further the case of the prosecution that the land bearing Khasra No. 95/2 is leasehold agricultural land belonging to Chandan Sai, Lamber Sai and the complainant, who have been cultivating the same for a long time. Adjacent to the said land lies Khasra No. 96/2 recorded as Amari Muslim (graveyard land), where the accused Mahfooz Alam is allegedly raising illegal construction of a residential house and, in furtherance of his unlawful intention, digging the complainant’s land during night hours and carrying out construction activities, thereby endangering the life and property of the complainant and his family members. On the basis of the said complaint, the police registered a case against the present appellant under Sections 296, 351(2), 115(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 3(1)(t) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated by the complainant in this case due to civil dispute between the parties. It is further submitted that the police 3 have not collected any material or evidence to connect the present appellant with the alleged crime, and there is nothing on record to suggest his involvement in any criminal conspiracy. The appellant has no criminal antecedents. It is further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Prithvi Raj Chauhan Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2020) 4 SCC 727 has held that if no prima facie offence under the SC/ST Act is made out from the prosecution story, anticipatory bail can be granted despite the statutory bar, in the present case also, there is no allegation that the appellant used any caste-indicating or insulting words against the complainant. From a plain reading of the prosecution story, the dispute appears to be purely civil in nature, which has been given a criminal colour to settle personal scores. The appellant has been falsely implicated and has neither committed any offence nor played any direct or indirect role in the alleged incident, and the prosecution case is false and based on a concocted story. The prosecution has failed to make out any case under the provisions of the SC/ST Act, and it is a settled proposition of law that offences under the said Act are not attracted merely because the complainant belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, even as per the prosecution story, no offence under the Atrocities Act or the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita is made out against the present appellant. The appellant resides with his family at the address mentioned in the cause title, has roots in society, and there is no likelihood of his absconding. He undertakes to abide by all terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court while granting anticipatory bail. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the anticipatory bail and submits that, on the basis of the complaint, statements of witnesses and the material 4 collected during investigation, specific allegations of encroachment, assault, abuse and criminal intimidation are made out against the accused. A prima facie case under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita as well as the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is established, therefore, the appellant is not entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail, considering the gravity of the offence and the bar contained under Section 18 of the Atrocities Act. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Upon examination of the material on record and the impugned order, it is evident that a named FIR has been registered against the applicant, which specifically mentions caste-based allegations. Consequently, the trial court's rejection of the anticipatory bail application on this ground is deemed proper. Considering the entirety of the case's facts and circumstances, particularly the nature and gravity of the offence, as well as the material collected and available on record against the applicant, this Court finds no illegality in the trial court's order. The cited case laws do not support the grant of anticipatory bail in this instance. Therefore, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court. 7. Accordingly, the present appeal for grant of anticipatory bail stands dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge vaibhav