1 CGHC010159522026 2026:CGHC:41509 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1127 of 2026  Satendra Kumar Rai S/o Rampyare Aged About 35 Years R/o Ward No. 09, Premnagar, P.S. Premnagar, District- Surajpur (Chhattisgarh) ... Appellant versus  State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station- Premnagar, District- Surajpur (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Siddhant Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Keshav Prasad Gupta, G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 24.09.2026 1) The appellant has preferred this Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for setting aside of order dated 01.04.2026 passed by the Special Judge Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocity)Act, District- Surajpur (C.G.) and for grant of anticipatory bail, as he apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No. 134/2024, registered at Police Station- Premnagar, District Surajpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 308(5) of BNS and Section 3(2)(v-a) of the SC/ST (P.A.) Act. 2 2) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, on 22.12.2024, while the complainant, Pradeep Shyam, was returning home after purchasing goods, the applicant came running towards him armed with a hammer and demanded Rs. 2,000/-. It is further alleged that when the complainant refused to pay, the applicant hurled caste-based abuses at him and threatened to murder his son, who resides abroad. On the basis of the complaint, the police registered an offence as stated above against the applicant. 3) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case, despite having no role in the alleged act. He further submits that prior to the registration of the present FIR, the appellant had already submitted a complaint to the local police regarding the harassment meted out to him and his family by the complainant and his associates, however, the police proceeded to arrest the applicant, thereby demonstrating clear bias and mala-fide intent in shielding the complainant and victimizing the appellant. He also submits that in the event bail is granted to the appellant, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and undertakes to appear before the learned trial Court as and when directed. He prays to allow this appeal. 4) On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that appellant herein abused the complainant, who belongs to Scheduled Tribe community in the name of his caste in public place. He further submits that Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the matter of Kiran 3 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 SC/ST(P.A.) Act and it is absolute in nature and has to be applied with a rider. He also submits that there are 03 previous criminal antecedent against the petitioner, which makes him a habitual offender but he has purposely disclosed the particulars of only 01 criminal antecedent in order to get favourable order from this Court, therefore, this criminal appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary and documents taken on record. 6) Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that the bar created under Section 18 of the SC/ST (P.A.) Act operates only if a prima facie case is made out under the Act. If the allegations in the FIR, even when accepted on their face value, do not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence under Section 3 of the SC/ST (P.A.) Act, the bar does not apply, and anticipatory bail is maintainable. 7) A perusal of the FIR would show that on the date of the incident, the present applicant rushed towards the complainant with a hammer and demanded Rs. 2,000/-, and when refused, he resorted to hurling caste-based abuses at the complainant and threatened to kill his son, who resides abroad. Furthermore, since the incident occurred in a public place, the intention of the 4 appellant to humiliate the complainant in full public view cannot be ruled out. Also, the complainant appeared before this Court on 07.07.2026 and raised objection in granting bail to the appellant. 8) Pertinently, the appellant has furnished details of only 01 previous criminal antecedent, whereas the learned State counsel has submitted that there are 03 other criminal antecedents registered against the appellant and that he has been absconding since 22.12.2024. 9) In view of the aforesaid discussion, in my considered view, no case is made out for interference. Accordingly, the instant criminal appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.09.24 16:41:44 +0530