CGHC010293342026 2026:CGHC:39299 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1925 of 2026 1 - Sudama Sharma S/o Rambhaj Sharma Aged About 58 Years. 2 - Dheeraj Sharma S/o Sudama Sharma Aged About 23 Years. Both are R/o Kotba Chauki, Kotba, Thana- Bagbahar, Distt.- Jashpur (C.G.) ... Applicant (s) versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- Out Post- Kotba, Thana- Bagbahar, Distt.- Jashpur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicants : Mr. Ashwell Franklin, Advocate. For State : Mr. Varunendra Mishra, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 08/09 /2026 1. The present appellants have filed the present criminal appeal under Section 14 A(2) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “the Act, 1989”) apprehending his arrest in Crime No. 49/2026 in Police Station Bagbahar, District- Jashpur (C.G.) for commission of offence under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 118(1), 118(2), 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita & and Section 3(1)(r) & 3(1)(s) of the Act, 1989. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant has lodged report on 20.05.2026 alleging that the applicants have assaulted her husband and used filthy language in the name of caste. On the basis of the complaint, the offence as aforestated has been registered against the appellants. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case. He would ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Date: 2026.09.08 17:13:38 +0530 further submit that complainant’s husband was disturbing the peace and tranquility of the temple where they are working as Pujari and they have no intension to commit the offence. He would further submit that the complainant’s husband himself caused injury to them by stone. He would further submit that the injuries caused to complainant’s husband are not grievous and would pray for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellants. 4. On the other hand learned State counsel vehemently objected the submission made by learned counsel for the appellants and would submit that the appellants are involved in the crime in question and there is sufficient material against them regarding commission of offence. He would further submit that as per the opinion given by the doctor, all the injuries sustained by complainant’s husband are caused by hard and blunt object within 72 hours and the nature of the injuries after X-ray report has been given grievous and would pray for rejection of the bail application. 5. I have learned counsel for the parties and perused the diary with utmost satisfaction. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the prima-facie involvement of the appellants in the crime in question and also considering the gravity of the offence, I am of the view that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the appellants. 7. Accordingly, the present bail application is rejected. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Arun