1 CGHC010256662026 2026:CGHC:39887 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1618 of 2026 Chandrbhan Sahu S/o Mangatu Ram Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Hirapur, Thana Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Balod, District Balod Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Shrivastava, Government Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 11/09/2026 1. The appellant has preferred this Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, “the SC/ST Act”), seeking to set aside the order dated 24.06.2026 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act (Atrocities), Balod, District Balod (C.G.), whereby the anticipatory bail application filed by the appellant under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short, “the BNSS”), in connection with Crime No. 282/2026 registered at Police Station- Balod, District Balod (C.G.), Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.09.11 19:29:05 +0530 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 296, 351 (3) and 318 (4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (in short, “the BNS”) and Section 3(1) (r) of the SC/ST Act, has been rejected. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant, Lalityanand Baghel, had an ongoing revenue/land dispute with his brother, Suresh Kumar, which was pending adjudication before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Balod. It is alleged that the appellant approached the complainant and falsely assured him that he would manage to get the matter decided in his favour. On such pretext, the appellant dishonestly induced the complainant and received money from him on 17.02.2025. Subsequently, the revenue case was not decided in favour of the complainant. When the complainant realized the deception, he demanded a refund of the amount advanced to the appellant. It is alleged that on 10.06.2026 at about 11:15 AM, when the complainant demanded his money back, the appellant not only refused to refund the amount but also intentionally insulted, intimidated, and abused the complainant with filthy language and caste-related remarks in public view. Consequently, the complainant lodged a written report, pursuant to which Crime No. 282/2026 was registered against the appellant at Police Station Balod. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case due to animosity. He would contend that as per the recitals of the FIR, the 3 alleged initial transaction took place on 17.02.2025, whereas the FIR came to be lodged after an inordinate delay of more than sixteen months. He would argue that the dispute is purely civil in nature arising out of monetary transactions, which has been deliberately given a criminal and caste-based color to invoke the stringent provisions of the Act, 1989, so as to bar the remedy of anticipatory bail. Since the matter is sensitive, the status report was filed as Annexure A/2 in lieu of the FIR; thus, the appellant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel as well as the complainant (Respondent No. 2), who appeared through video conferencing on 18.08.2026, vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant. It is submitted that there are direct and specific allegations against the appellant of cheating the complainant under the false promise of procuring a favorable order from a quasi-judicial authority. Further, on 10.06.2026 at about 11:15 AM, the appellant humiliated and abused the complainant within public view by using his caste name and derogatory slurs. In view of the specific bar contained under Sections 18 and 18-A of the Act, 1989, the application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable; thus, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the case diary, and examined the impugned order dated 24.06.2026. 6. It is well settled law that while considering an application for anticipatory bail involving offences under the Act, 1989, the Court is 4 required to ascertain whether a prima facie case is made out from the allegations in the FIR and the material collected during the investigation. Where the material discloses a prima facie commission of an offence under the Act, 1989, the statutory bar under Sections 18 and 18-A comes into play. 7. In the case at hand, though the initial monetary transaction took place on 17.02.2025, the subsequent incident of abuse and intimidation is specifically alleged to have occurred on 10.06.2026 at about 11:15 AM. The case diary and the statements recorded during the investigation reveal that the appellant intentionally hurled filthy and caste-based abuses at the complainant in public view upon being asked to return the money; thus, looking to the specific role attributed to the appellant, a prima facie case under the provisions of the Act, 1989 is clearly made out. 8. Having considered the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations, and the specific statutory bar under Sections 18 and 18-A of the Act, 1989, this Court does not find any illegality and perversity in the order passed by the learned Special Court rejecting the anticipatory bail application of the appellant. Consequently, the appeal is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) vatti Judge