1 2026:CGHC:6619 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 52 of 2026 1 - Rajkumar Mishra S/o Ramkailash Mishra, Aged About 43 Years R/o Ward No. 38, Tendudipa, Raigarh Tahsil And District- Raigarh (C.G.) 2 - Abhishek Mishra S/o Rajkumar Mishra Aged About 22 Years R/o Ward No. 38, Tendudipa, Raigarh Tahsil And District- Raigarh (C.G.) 3 - Shani Dev Mishra S/o Om Prakash Mishra, Aged About 23 Years R/o House No. 76, Near Sonu Muda, Lake, Dewarpara, Tendudipa, Raigarh Tahsil And District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Appellants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Jaijaipur, Revenue District- Sakti (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Ms. Pragati Pandey on behalf of Mr. Hari Agrawal, 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. The complainant appeared before this Court on 02.02.2026 and raised an objection to the present bail application. 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 pressed his neck. Thereafter, the complainant somehow managed 3 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 appellants at P.S. - Jaijaipur, Revenue District- Sakri (C.G.). 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are innocent and they have falsely implicated in the case. Even if taking the prosecution to be true, the incident involved was of road/street fight and the allegations/offences under the Special Act have been made solely in order to falsely implicate the Appellant. No role has been attributed to appellants no. 2 and 3, which clearly shows that the entire prosecution story is false and concocted. 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. Heard counsel for respective parties. 8. As per the prosecution case, the alleged incident occurred on 14.05.2025 near Jaijaipur Market, wherein it is alleged that the 4 accused persons restrained the complainant, abused him with caste-related words, assaulted him, and later threatened him. The injuries alleged are simple in nature and there is no material on record indicating any grievous or life-threatening injury. 9. A bare perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned court below has rejected the bail application primarily on the ground that the nature of the offence is serious and that there is sufficient evidence against the accused. However, seriousness of the offence alone cannot be a ground to deny bail. At the stage of consideration of bail, a detailed examination of evidence is neither required nor permissible. The court is required to consider whether custodial detention of the accused is necessary. In the present case, the investigation has already been completed and the charge-sheet has been filed on 09.12.2025. Therefore, further custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. There is no material on record to show that the petitioner is a habitual offender or that he is likely to abscond or tamper with prosecution evidence or influence witnesses if released on bail. 10. The allegations under the SC/ST Act are also required to be examined cautiously. Mere reproduction of caste-related words in the FIR, without prima facie material showing intentional humiliation in public view, is not sufficient to deny bail at this stage. 11. The learned court below has failed to consider these aspects and has rejected the bail application in a mechanical manner. As such, 5 the impugned order suffers from material irregularity and is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated 09.12.2025 is set aside. It is directed that appellants- Rajkumar Mishra, Abhishek Mishra and Shani Dev Mishra 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) Appellants shall appear before trial court regularly on each and every date, unless exempted from appearance. (b) Appellants shall not, in any manner, tamper with the prosecution witnesses. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima