1 2026:CGHC:8074 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 266 of 2026 Smt. Aarti Khanna W/o Pranjal Khanna Aged About 38 Years R/o Tikarapara, Balod, Police Station- Balod Tehsil And District Balod C.G. (Particulars Of Appellant Is Properly Not Mentioned In First Page Of Impugned Order Sheet And Correct Address Is Mentioned As Per F.I.R.) ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Balod, District Balod C.G. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate For Res./State : Mr. Karan Bahrani, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 13/02/2026 1. The victim alongwith his brother appeared virtually and recorded ‘objection’ in granting bail to the Appellant. 2. This appeal is filed under Section 14-A (2) of the SCST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for grant of regular bail to the appellant as he is arrested in connection with crime number 456 of 2025 registered at police station- Balod, District Balod (C.G.) for commission of offence 2 punishable under Sections 331(3), 296, 351(3), 324(2), 115(2), 3(5) of BNS, 2023 during the course of investigation, after investigation offence under Sections and 3(1) R and 3(1)s of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 have been added. 3. As per case of the prosecution, Complainant is a resident of Ward No. 8, Mararpara, Balod, and he is presently studying in the second year of B.Com. On the night of 22.10.2025 at about 7:25 PM, Aarti Khanna, present appellant and her daughter, who are the residents of Tikrapara, Balod, entered the house of the complainant carrying a hockey stick. They abused the complainant and her mother using obscene language referring to mother and sister, and also used caste-based derogatory words, and both of them slapped the complainant and her mother Urmila Thakur three to four times. Aarti Khanna pulled her mother’s hair, called them illiterate and inferior persons, and threatened to kill their entire family and also made caste-related insulting remarks by calling them people of a low caste; they further caused damage to the bicycle kept in the house by striking it with the hockey stick and threatened that persons like them would be falsely implicated in cases through money and influence; thereafter, the compliant came to know that these persons had also quarreled and assaulted her brother Jitendra Thakur, therefore, complainant lodged a report . On the basis of this report, offences under Sections 331(3), 296, 351(3), 115(2), and 324 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, along with Sections 3(1)(d), 3(1)(gh), and 3(5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, are registered and the offence has accordingly been registered for investigation. 4. Vide order dated 29.12.2025, the learned Trial Court has rejected the bail application bearing ST No. 460 of 2025 filed by the appellant against which the appellant has filed this appeal. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submit that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that earlier an FIR was lodged against the brother of the complainant by the present appellant and due to which on a false allegation alleged offence has been registered against the present appellant. He also submits that one co-accused person has been 3 granted bail by the learned Trial Court. The appellant is a lady and she has no any role in the offence in question. He further submits that the appellant is in jail since 23.10.2025 and the appeal is likely to take some time to be finalized, therefore, it is prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the appellant may be released on bail. 6. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the State opposes the bail application and submits that there is sufficient evidence available on record against the Appellant. The charge-sheet has been filed and the charges have been framed, therefore, at this stage, the Appellant may not be granted bail. 7. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 8. Considering the circumstances of the case and the fact that the appellant is a lady and the similarly situated co-accused person has been granted bail by the learned Trial Court, further considering the custody period of the appellant and the fact that the appeal is likely to take some time to be finalized, without further commenting on other merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it would be appropriate to release the appellant on bail. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 26.03.2025 passed by the Trial Court is set-aside. 10. It is directed that the appellant shall be released on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one solvent surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for her appearance before the said Court as and when directed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Ami AMITA DUBEY Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2026.02.16 15:09:43 +0530