1 2026:CGHC:8325 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 235 of 2026 Shivkumar Yadav S/o. Devnandan, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Jhampidaraha, Tahsil Bagicha, P.S. Bagicha, District Jashpur C.G. ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Bagicha, District Jashpur C.G. ... Respondent/State For Appellant : Ms. Apoorva Ghore, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Monika Dey, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 16.02.2026 1. The victim appeared through virtual mode from concerned DLSA and raised objection in granting anticipatory bail to the appellant. 2. This appeal u/s 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short “the SC/ST Act”) has been preferred by the appellants against the order dated SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2026.02.17 17:22:30 +0530 2 09.01.2026, passed by learned Special Judge, (SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities) Act Jashpur, District Jashpur Bail Application No.03/2026 whereby, the application filed by the appellant under Section 482 of BNSS apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.281/2025 registered at Police Station Bagicha, District Jashpur (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(3), 115(2), 109, 191(3) of BNS and Sections 3 (1)(r), 3(1)(s) & 3 (2)(v) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 has been rejected. 3. In this case there are total 6 accused persons out of which 5 have already been arrested. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that complainant/victim Sajan Ram filed a complaint at Police Station Bagicha, Jashpur, alleging that on 30.11.2025, when he and his family were fencing and plowing their land, co-accused Devanandan Yadav and his family members including the appellant herein, armed with sticks, stones, and axes, assaulted the complainant, his family, and villagers, due to which they sustained injuries and taken to the hospital. On report being lodged by the complainant, offence under the aforesaid Sections has been registered against the appellant and other co-accused. 4. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that the offence under Atrocities Act is not made out. The FIR does not disclose that the crime was committed on the basis of caste. None of the victim/injured sustained grievous injuries. Since, the case under Atrocities Act is prima facie not made out as per the FIR, 3 anticipatory bail may be granted. She further submits that the appellant is the Principal of Shiv Model Public School, Bagicha and on the date of incident, he went with children of his school to Mainpat, Ambikapur for educational tour. In support of this statement, she has filed relevant school documents and photograph of the tour (Annexure A-5). Further, there was a land dispute between the parties, therefore, the appellant has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. Further, a counter case (FIR No.282/2025) has been registered by brother of the appellant against complainant party, in which name of the appellant is also not mentioned. Hence, it is prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the appellant may be granted benefit of anticipatory bail. 5. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, opposes the anticipatory bail, submits that the injured/victim and the appellant known to each others prior to the incident as they living in a same village. Name of the appellant is mentioned in the FIR. Further, a case of atrocity is made out against the appellant and he is not eligible for grant of anticipatory bail considering the bar under section 18 of the Atrocities Act. Hence, the appeal may be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. The application under Section 482 of the BNSS filed by the appellant for grant of anticipatory bail has been rejected by the 4 trial Court taking note of the bar provided under Section 18 of the Act of SC/ST Act. It is, however, to be noted at this stage that the bar so provided therein was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan vs. State of Maharashtra and another reported in (2018) 6 SCC 454, and arrived at a conclusion that if the person is able to show prima facie case that he has not committed any atrocity and the allegations have been made mala fidely, then the bar provided therein would not be attracted. Paragraphs 50, 51, 53 and 55 are relevant for the purpose, which read as under :- “50. We have no quarrel with the proposition laid down in the said judgment that persons committing offences under the Atrocities Act ought not to be granted anticipatory bail in the same manner in which the anticipatory bail is granted in other cases punishable with similar sentence. Still, the question remains whether in cases where there is no prima facie case under the Act, bar under Section 18 operates can be considered. We are unable to read the said judgment as laying down that exclusion is applicable to such situations. If a person is able to show that, prima facie, he has not committed any atrocity against a member of SC and ST and that the allegation was mala fide and prima facie false and that prima facie no case was made out, we do not see any justification for applying Section 18 in such cases. Consideration in the mind of this Court in Balothia (1995 3 SCC 221) is that the perpetrators of atrocities should not be granted anticipatory bail so that they may not terrorise the victims. Consistent with this view, it can certainly be said that innocent persons against whom there was no prima facie case or patently false case cannot be subjected to the same treatment as the persons who are prima facie perpetrators of the crime. 51. In view of the decisions in Vilas Pandurang Pawar (2012 8 SCC 795) and Shakuntla Devi (2014 15 SCC 521), the learned ASG has rightly stated that there is no absolute bar to grant anticipatory bail if no prima facie case is made out inspite of validity of Section 18 of the Atrocities Act being upheld. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 5 53. It is well settled that a statute is to be read in the context of the background and its object. Instead of literal interpretation, the court may, in the present context, prefer purposive interpretation to achieve the object of law. Doctrine of proportionality is well known for advancing the object of Articles 14 and 21. A procedural penal provision affecting liberty of citizen must be read consistent with the concept of fairness and reasonableness. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 55. In the present context, wisdom of legislature in creating an offence cannot be questioned but individual justice is a judicial function depending on facts. As a policy, anticipatory bail may be excluded but exclusion cannot be intended to apply where a patently mala fide version is put forward. Courts have inherent jurisdiction to do justice and this jurisdiction cannot be intended to be excluded. Thus, exclusion of Court’s jurisdiction is not to be read as absolute.” 8. While considering the aforesaid judgment, it has been held further by the Supreme Court in the matter of Prithvi Raj Chauhan vs. Union of India and others reported in (2020) 4 SCC 727 at paragraph 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.” 9. In the FIR registered in the case at hand, there is no mention of any particular caste. In the light of the aforesaid judgments, the bar of Section 18 of the Atrocities Act is not found to be valid as there is no mention of any particular caste in the FIR. Further, looking to the documents annexed with the application, it seems that the appellant was not present on spot, on the date of incident. The appellant's name is not even mentioned in the counter-FIR, which would indicate whether he was present at the scene. The 6 appellant is a school Principal. In such situations, there is all possibility of taking time in completion of investigation and trial, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case in which the appellant should be extended the benefit of anticipatory bail. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 09.01.2026 is set aside. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the appellant in connection with the aforesaid crime number, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- 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 appellant shall make himself available for interrogation/medical test etc. before the concerned investigating officer as and when required; (ii) that the appellant 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 appellant shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and (iv) that the appellant shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham