1 2026:CGHC:7603 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 259 of 2026 1 - Shubhank Gupta @ Shubhu S/o Dinesh Kumar Gupta Aged About 22 Years R/o Ward No. 15, Sikshak Colony, Dongargaon, Thana And Tehsil Dongargaon, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station In-charge, Thana Ajak, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Utsav Mahiswar, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Swati Raj Gupta, P.L. For Objector/complainant : Mr. Yogesh Pandey, Adv. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 11/02/2026 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 01.01.2026 passed by the Special Judge, SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Remand Patrak Apradh No.02/2025 whereby the application filed by the appellant under Section 482 of BNSS apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.02/2025 registered at Police Station AJAK, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable HEERA LAL SAHU Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2026.02.12 10:38:53 +0530 2 under Sections 296, 351(2), 3(5) of BNS and Section 3(2)(/k) & 3(2)(va) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been rejected. 2. The case of prosecution, in short, is that on 06.10.2025, the complainant lodged a complaint stating that on 13.08.2025 at about 10:30 pm, his neighbour Dinesh @ Babua Gupta and his son Shubhank @ Shubhu Gupta were knocking on the door of his house and used abusive language in the name of his caste and also threatened for life. Due to a land encroachment dispute, the complainant/victim filed complaints against the accused at the police Station on 23.05.2022, 27.05.2022, 03.06.2022, 12.10.2022 and 02.09.2024. Based on this, offence has been registered against the present appellant. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that there is a delay of 52 days in lodging the FIR. The appellant and the complainant are neighbours, and there has been a prolonged civil dispute with the father of the appellant regarding the encroachment of the road. The present appellant is a computer engineer and is a heart patient who has undergone heart surgery at Manipal Hospital, Bengaluru, Karnataka, in August 2025. He further submits that the bail application has been rejected by the trial Court on the ground that there is a bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act. However, the case under the Atrocities Act is not prima facie made out as there is no averment regarding the caste in the FIR as well as in the statement and therefore, anticipatory bail should be granted 3 to the appellant. He placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Keshaw Mahto @ Keshw Kumar Mahto vs. State of Bihar & Anr., passed in Special Leave Petition (Cr..) No. 12144 of 2025 on 1201.2026, and the decision of this Court in the matters of Laxmi Narayan Sahu vs. State of C.G. and Anr., passed in CRA No. 1556/2021 on 07.02.2022 and Basant Shukla vs. State of C.G., passed in CRA No. 558/2022 on 28.02.2022. 4. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, opposing the anticipatory bail, submits that in the written complaint made by the complainant dated 14.08.2025 coupled with FIR, there is a clear mention that the appellant abused him and his family members mentioning their caste, and therefore, he is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail considering grievousness of the offence and the bar under Section 18 of the Atrocities Act. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the objector/victim also opposes the same and submits that there is a bar under Section 18 of the Atrocities Act. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to grant anticipatory bail. 6. The victim/complainant along with his counsel, is present before this Court today and raised objection to grant of bail to the appellant. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 4 8. In the case in hand, looking to the material available on record, it is clear that there is a mention of a particular caste in the FIR coupled with complaint made by the complainant, and the facts of the cases cited by the counsel for the appellant are different from the present case; therefore, the case law cited by the counsel for the appellant is not in his support; hence, the rejection of the anticipatory bail by the trial Court on the basis of bar under Section 18 of Atrocities Act is found to be proper. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. 9. Accordingly, the present appeal for grant of anticipatory bail stands dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H.L. Sahu