1 2026:CGHC:27305 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1315 of 2026 Vatan Gupta S/o Ramesh Gupta Aged About 28 Years R/o Ward No. 09, Ramanujganj, P/s Ramanujganj, Distt.- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) ...Appellant versus The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Of Police Station - Ramanujganj District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Rahul Mishra, Advocate For State/ Respondent : Mr. Rohitashava Singh, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 02/07/2026 1. This appeal is filed under Section 14-A(2) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for grant of regular bail to the appellant as he is arrested in connection with Crime No. 45/2026 registered at police station Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(3), 126(2), 132, ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Digitally signed by ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Date: 2026.07.04 13:32:00 +0530 2 3(5) BNS and 3(1)( द ) 3(1)(ध), 3(2)(V)(क) of SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2. That, the prosecution case, in brief, is that on 18.03.2026, the complainant lodged a First Information Report alleging that while a surprise inspection was being conducted at Hotel Dhaba, Ramanujganj, to check the unauthorized commercial use of domestic LPG gas cylinders, the inspection team proceeded to Suraj Dhaba near Battalion Petrol Pump, where a domestic gas cylinder being used for commercial purposes was found and seizure proceedings were initiated. During the inspection, the accused persons allegedly obstructed the officials in the discharge of their official duties, abused the complainant by uttering caste- based remarks with the intent to insult and humiliate her in public view, and criminally intimidated her by threatening to kill her if she did not leave the place. On the basis of these allegations, FIR bearing Crime No. 45/2026 was registered against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 296, 351(3), 126(2), 132 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3(1)(द), 3(1)(घ) and 3(2)(v)(क) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. By order dated 11.05.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge in Crime No. 45/2026, the bail application filed by 3 the appellant has been rejected against which the appellant has filed this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated due to mala fide intention. It is submitted that the dispute arose in the course of the inspection and that the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act have been wrongly invoked. It is further submitted that the appellant is a permanent resident, has no criminal antecedents and the appellant has been in judicial custody since 28.04.2026, and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. He is in judicial custody and, therefore, prays that he be enlarged on regular bail. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the appeal and submits that the allegations against the appellant are serious in nature and supported by the material collected during investigation. It is contended that the appellant obstructed a public servant in the discharge of official duties, abused the complainant by uttering caste-based remarks and criminally intimidated her. Hence, the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of bail. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the 4 case diary, and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegations, the period of custody of the appellant, the fact that no criminal antecedents of the appellant have been brought on record, and the fact that the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the appellant has made out a fit case for grant of regular bail. 7. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. 8. It is directed that the appellant shall be released on bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the said Court as and when directed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Arpan