1 CGHC010350202026 2026:CGHC:42344 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2258 of 2026 1. Bhagwano Yadav S/o Dhaneshwar Yadav Aged About 61 Years R/o Tukupakhna, Police Station And Tehsil Patthalgaon, District Jashpur (C.G.) 2. Premchand Yadav S/o Chhiromani Yadav Aged About 49 Years R/o Pakargaon, Police Station And Tehsil Patthalgaon, District Jashpur (C.G.) 3. Narendra Yadav S/o Bhagwano Yadav Aged About 39 Years R/o Tukupakhna, Raghunathpur, Police Station And Tehsil Patthalgaon, District Jashpur (C.G.) 4. Padman Ram Yadav S/o Dhaneshwar Yadav Aged About 48 Years R/o Tukupakhna, Police Station And Tehsil Patthalgaon, District Jashpur (C.G.) 5. Dilbandhu Yadav S/o Dhaneshwar Yadav Aged About 58 Years R/o Tukupakhna, Police Station And Tehsil Patthalgaon, District Jashpur (C.G.) ... Appellants versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Azak, District Jashpur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Arpan Verma, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Keshav Prasad Gupta, G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.10.01 11:29:29 +0530 2 29.09.2026 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 of order dated 24.08.2026 passed by the Special Judge Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, District- Jashpur (C.G.) and for grant of anticipatory bail, as they apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime No. 0002/2026, registered at Police Station- Anusuchit Jaati Kalyan, District Jashpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 189, 191, 329, 324, 115, 74, 351(2) and 351(3) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(f), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST(P.A.) Act, 1989. 2) The case of the prosecution is that an FIR was lodged by Sanjay Bada S/o Joseph Bada (hereinafter to be referred as ‘Complainant’), a member of a Scheduled Tribe, stating that he is the owner of 0.18 acres of ancestral land. It is alleged by the complainant that on 17.07.2026, ten accused persons, including the present appellants, acting in furtherance of a common intention and armed with deadly weapons, entered his field, assaulted and verbally abused his brothers and daughter in the name of their tribe, and attempted to outrage the modesty of his sister. On the basis of the said complaint, the police registered an offence, as stated above, against the ten persons, including the present appellants. 3 3) Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the appellants have falsely been implicated in the present case, despite having no role in the alleged act. He further submits that earlier an application u/s 250 of C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 was moved by Dhaneshwar Yadav, who is the father of appellants – Bhagwano Yadav, Padman Ram Yadav and Dilbandhu Yadav before Naib Tehsildar, Pathalgaon on the basis of demarcation report dated 06.06.2022, the said matter was contested by the father of complainant and the authority concerned passed a detailed order holding that Kh. No. 73/14 ad-measuring 0.421 hectare belongs to Dhaneshwar Yadav and Joseph Bada has encroached over said land. He also submits that demarcation report was challenged by the complainant – party by preferring appeal, which was dismissed vide order dated 20.03.2023 and the second appeal was also dismissed by Divisional Commissioner, Sarguja vide order dated 07.02.2025. He contends that in the FIR, it is alleged that the present appellants rushed to the agricultural field of the complainant, however, the disputed land had already been duly handed over to the appellants' family, who had commenced cultivation there. Consequently, it was the complainant’s family who forcibly entered the land and were the actual aggressors. He further contends that in the event bail is granted to the appellants, they shall not misuse 4 the liberty of bail and undertake to appear before the learned trial Court as and when directed. He has placed reliance on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Prathvi Raj Chauhan Versus Union of India and Others1 and Kiran versus Rajkumar Jivraj Jain & Another2. He prays to allow this criminal appeal. 4) On the other hand, Mr. Keshav Prasad Gupta, learned State counsel opposes the instant criminal appeal and submits that a prima facie case is made out against the appellants, as the FIR and the statements of the complainant and the injured persons recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS clearly show that the present appellants assaulted the complainant’s family, hurled caste-based abuses, and attempted to outrage the modesty of the complainant’s sister. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary and documents taken on record. 6) In Prithvi Raj Chauhan (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that though Sections 18 and 18-A create a statutory bar against granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC, but if the FIR and supporting material do not disclose a prima facie case attracting the provisions of the SC/ST Act, the statutory bar does not apply, and courts retain the power to consider and grant pre- 1. (2020) 4 SCC 727 2. (2025) AIR SC 4083 5 arrest bail. 7) In Kiran (supra), Apex Court held that a duty is cast on the court to verify the averments in the complaint and to find out whether an offence under Section 3(1) of SC/ST Act has been prima facie made out. It is further held that if there is a specific intimidation with intent to humiliate by calling with caste name, the accused persons are not entitled to anticipatory bail. 8) Bearing in mind the principles laid down in the above judgments, we will now advert to the facts of the case. 9) Admittedly, in the FIR, it is categorically stated that the appellants and other accused persons, acting in furtherance of a common intention, entered the agricultural field of the complainant and assaulted his brothers and daughter. It is further alleged that the complainant's mother was forcibly pushed, resultantly sustaining injuries. It is also alleged that the appellants attempted to outrage the modesty of the complainant’s sister. In her statement recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS, she stated that the appellants caught hold of her, dragged her, and attempted to outrage her modesty. 10) It appears that there are specific allegations against the present appellants to the effect that they hurled caste-based insults at the complainant’s family and attempted to outrage the modesty of the complainant’s sister. Furthermore, since the alleged incident 6 occurred in a place within public view, the intention of the appellants to humiliate the complainant’s family cannot be ruled out at this stage. Additionally, the complainant appeared before this Court today through video-conferencing and raised an objection to the grant of bail to the appellants. 11) Although Mr. Paranjpe has argued that the appellants have been falsely implicated due to antecedent family enmity, this Court cannot lose sight of the settled position of law that the court’s role at the stage of considering bail is circumscribed to determining whether a prima facie case is disclosed. Therefore, conducting a mini-trial or testing the veracity of the FIR allegations against the rival defense plea at this threshold is impermissible and the appellants would get sufficient opportunity to place relevant material before the learned Trial Court to prove their innocence. 12) 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