1 CGHC010221322026 2026:CGHC:39868 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1386 of 2026 1. Dulikeshan Sahu S/o Bodhram Sahu Aged About 44 Years R/o Village- Dongripali Tahsil- Pithora Police Station Pithora, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) 2. Kiran Sahu W/o Dulikeshan Sahu Aged About 41 Years R/o Village- Dongripali Tahsil- Pithora Police Station Pithora, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station Pithora District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate For State : Mr. Afroj Khan, Panel Lawyer For Complainant/Objector : Mr. Harshal Chouhan, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 11.09.2026 1. The appellants have preferred this Criminal Appeal under Section 14- A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for setting aside SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.09.11 18:07:15 +0530 2 of order dated 30.05.2026 passed by the Special Judge Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocity)Act, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) and for grant of anticipatory bail, as they apprehends their arrest in connection with Crime No. 127/2026, registered at Police Station- Pithora, District Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(2), 3(5) of BNS and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short Act, 1989). 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, on 10.11.2025 at about 10.00 am the complainant/Manbodh Kodaku and his relatives were harvesting the crops at their field, and at the same time, a dispute took place between the complainant party and the appellants. It is alleged in the FIR, which was lodged on 06.05.2026, that the appellants herein abused the complainant party in name of his caste and resultantly the police registered an FIR for offence stated above. 3. Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate would argue that FIR was lodged after six months from date of incident without explaining delay part. He would further contend that there was a land dispute between parties and a proceeding under Section 145 of CrPC was going on before the Sub- Divisional Magistrate wherein similar allegations have been made. He would contend that the bar created under Section 18 of Act, 1989 would not attract as the proceedings under Section 145 of CrPC (Now Section 164 of BNSS) was concluded by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pithora, District Mahasamund vide order dated 30.06.2026, wherein allegations made by the complaint party were not found proved. He would contend 3 that prima facie offence punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are not made out. He would pray to allow this appeal. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Harshal Chouhan, appearing for objector/complainant would oppose. Mr. Chouhan would contend that the appellants herein abused the complainant, who belongs to Scheduled Tribe community in the name of his caste in public place. He would contend that the incident was witnessed by two eye witnesses Mahesh Karsh and Sitaram Sahu. It is also argued that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the matter of Kiran versus Rajkumar Jivraj Jain & Anr., reported in 2025 Live Law (SC) 869, has held that the bar against the grant of anticipatory bail is engrafted under Section 18 of the Act of 1989. He would contend that the bar created under Section 18 of the Act of 1989 is absolute in nature and is to be applied with a rider. He would submit that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. Mr. Afroj Khan, Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would support the contention made by Mr. Harshal Chouhan. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary and documents taken on record. 7. Admittedly, there is a bar under the Act of 1989 against entertaining an application for grant of anticipatory bail. 8. Perusal of FIR would show that on 10.11.2025, the appellants herein abused the complainant party in the name of his caste. It is also apparent from perusal of case diary that FIR was lodged after six months without 4 explaining the period of delay. If abusive words were used by appellants herein against the complainant in the month of November, he should have approached the police officials immediately thereafter, he waited for long six months, and thereafter, made a complaint. The veracity of allegations made by the complainant against the appellants can be examined at the stage of trial while recording the evidence. As there was inordinate delay of six months in lodging complaint by the complainant. I am inclined to allow this appeal. The order dated 30.05.2026 passed by the Special Judge Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocity)Act, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) in Bail Application No. 527/2026 is hereby set-aside. 9. Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the appellants – Dulikeshan Sahu and Kiran Sahu, on executing a personal bond with one local surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, they shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) They shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court. (b) They shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) Tthey shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to her by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d) The Appellants and the surety shall submit a copy of their adhaar card alongwith a colored postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. 5 (e) They shall not involve themselves in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant