1 2026:CGHC:6374 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2665 of 2025 1 - Vijay Rajpoot S/o Late Mohanlal Rajpoot Aged About 40 Years R/o Sindhi Colony, Kachhi Kholi Beladula, Raigarh, Tehsil And District- Raigarh (C.G.) 2 - Amit Ahuja S/o Late Pushottam Ahuja Aged About 35 Years R/o Ward No. 22, Pakki Kholi Sindhi Colony Raigarh, Tehsil And District- Raigarh (C.G.) 3 - Mukesh Narwani S/o Harsas Laal Narwani Aged About 35 Years R/o House No. 28 Gulmohar Colony, Thana Chakradharnagar, Raigarh, Tehsil And District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Appellants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Chakradhar Nagar, District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, G.A. along with Mr. Vivek Mishra, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 04/02/2026 1. This appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Caste and 2 Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is filed against impugned order dated 28.11.2025 (Annexure A-1) in Crime No. 483/2025 passed by learned Special Judge (Atrocities Act), District- Raigarh (C.G.) whereby appellants’ application filed under Section 483 of BNSS for grant of bail is rejected. 2. Appellant no. 1 is in jail since 31.10.2025 and the appellant no. 2 and 3 are in jail since 24.11.2025 in connection with Crime No. 483/2025 registered at Police Station- Chakradhar Nagar, District- Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 299, 302, 353, 3(5) of BNS and Section 3(1) (Q) of SC/ST Act, 1989 and Section 66 F(2) of the Information Technology Act. 3. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that complainant namely Ajay Kumar Bhardwaj filed a report stating that in their Satnami Samaj whatsapp group i.e. Pragatisheel Satnami Samaj, District- Raigarh, a video was posted by a member namely Shivkashi, mentioning that the person visible in the video is Vijay Rajpoot/applicant no. 1 herein, and in the said video, abuses have been made to their religious leader Baba Guru Ghasidas Ji and as such, their religious sentiments have been hurt. Further, voices of some other persons are also audible in the video, which are instigating said Vijay Rajpoot to make abuse and to use abusive words. On the basis of the written report to this effect, an FIR for offence punishable under Sections 296, 299, 302, 353, 3(5) of BNS and Section 3(1) (Q) of SC/ST Act, 1989 and Section 66 F(2) of the Information Technology Act was registered. 3 4. Learned counsel for the appellant prays to withdraw the present appeal in respect of appellant no. 1, i.e. Vijay Rajpoot. 5. As prayed, the present appeal in respect of appellant no. 1, i.e. Vijay Rajpoot stands dismissed as withdrawn. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant in respect of appellant no. 2 and 3 submits that the appellant is innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the case. He further contended that no offence under aforesaid sections is made out against the appellant no. 2 and 3, moreover the essential ingredients of the offences have not been brought home by the prosecution. The alleged video is doctored and morphed and does not reflect that it is the applicants who have prepared them for the purposes of hurting the religious sentiments of any community, particularly the SC Community. He further submits that be that as it may, the perusal of the alleged video would show that it was a personal video and not meant for circulation. Further, it is also not the case of complainant, that it is the applicants who have intentionally posted/forwarded the video in their whatsapp group. He further submits that there is no named FIR against the appellant no. 2 and 3 therefore, they are entitled for bail. 7. 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. 4 8. The complainant appeared before this Court on 30.01.2026 through DLSA, Raigarh and raised an objection to the bail application of the present appellants. 9. Heard counsel for respective parties and perused the documents available on record. 10. Upon considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the allegations, it is evident that the names of appellant Nos. 2 and 3 do not find mention in the FIR. They have been implicated in the present case solely on the basis of the memorandum statement of appellant no. 1, namely Vijay Rajpoot. Further, in the alleged video, the faces of appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are not visible, and their arrest has been effected by the police merely ont eh basis of voice allegedly heard in the said video. 11. One of the allegations levelled by the prosecution against the appellant no. 2 and 3 is that they had made the alleged video viral in their WhatsApp group. However, in this regard, the prosecution agency has neither seized their mobile phones nor produced any report establishing their involvement in making the video viral. Moreover, no voice test of appellant Nos. 2 and 3 has been conducted to substantiate the claim that the alleged video contains their voices. 12. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to allow the present appeal insofar as it relates appellant Nos. 2 and 3. 13. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated 5 28.11.2025 is set aside. It is directed that appellants Amit Ahuja and Mukesh Narwani shall be released on regular bail upon their furnishing a bail bond in sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety each 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