1 2026:CGHC:15560 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 691 of 2026 1 - Manharan Pandey S/o Late Jeevanlal Pandey, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village- Nagaridih Thana Shivrinarayan District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.). 2 - Gagan Pandey S/o Manharan Pandey, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Village- Nagaridih Thana Shivrinarayan District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). 3 - Dhaneshwari @ Chandni Pandey W/o Hem Prasad Pandey, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village- Nagaridih Thana Shivrinarayan District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). 4 - Smt. Bhagwati Pandey W/o Late Jeevanlal Pandey, Aged About 68 Years, R/o Village- Nagaridih Thana Shivrinarayan District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.). 5 - Kishan Pandey S/o Late Jeevanlal Pandey, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village- Nagaridih Thana Shivrinarayan District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). 6 - Vijay Pandey S/o Late Jeevanlal Pandey, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village- Nagaridih Thana Shivrinarayan District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). 7 - Darsu @ Dilharan Pandey S/o Late Jeevanlal Pandey, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Village- Nagaridih Thana Shivrinarayan District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). ... Appellants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- District- Magistrate P.S. Ajk District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). ... Respondent For Appellants : Mr. V.K. Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Swati Raj Gupta, P.L. SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2026.04.06 17:02:51 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 06/04/2026 1. This appeal u/s 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short “the SC/ST Act”) has been preferred by the appellants against the order dated 27.02.2026 passed by the Special Judge, SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in B.A. No. 179/2026, whereby the application filed by the appellants under Section 482 of BNSS for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 02/2026 registered at Police Station AJK, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(2), 191(2) of BNS and Section 3(2)(V)(a), 3(1)(n)(ध) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been rejected. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 06.01.2026, the complainant, wife of appellant no.1, lodged a report at the concerned Police Station stating that she got married to appellant no.1 on 07.08.2025 as per Hindu rites and rituals at Mankadai Temple, Village Khokhara, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.). However, a few days later, appellant no.1/husband, along with other appellants/family members (Gagan Pandey, Chandni Pandey, Bhagwati Pandey, Kishan Pandey, Vijay Pandey, and Darshu Pandey), started abusing her, saying she belonged to a lower caste, calling her derogatory names, and threatening her life. They didn't allow her to cook or enter the 3 home temple, and when she did cook, they wouldn't eat the food. They repeatedly insulted her, saying she's from a lower caste, and her husband told her he wouldn't keep her at home, eventually leaving her at her parents' house, threatening her and her family if she took any action. Based on the above, offences have been registered against the appellants. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that there is a delay of 2 months and 20 days in lodging the FIR. There was a love marriage between appellant no.1 and the complainant, solemnized as per Hindu rites and rituals. Appellants no.2 to 7 are family members of appellant no.1, and they had solemnized the marriage happily with the consent of both parties. However, the complainant wants to live separately, and appellant no.1 was not ready, leading to the complainant falsely implicating all the appellants in this case. The appellants have a clean record with no criminal antecedents, and all the offences levelled against them are bailable in nature; therefore, they may be granted anticipatory bail. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the prayer made by the counsel for the appellants, submitting that there is a named FIR, sections of the Atrocity Act have been invoked and the FIR also mentions that the accused persons knew that the complainant belongs to a specific caste. Considering all these facts the 4 appellants are not eligible for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, the appeal should be dismissed. 5. On 30.03.2026, the victim appeared virtually from the concerned DLSA and recorded ‘objection’ in granting bail to the appellants. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that there is a named FIR in which section of the Atrocity Act has been invoked, the FIR mentions that the appellants/accused persons knew that the complainant belongs to a particular caste and also considering the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act and the nature and gravity of offence and the material collected and available on record against the appellants, this Court does not find any error or illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. 8. Accordingly, the present appeal for grant of anticipatory bail stands dismissed. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Sourabh P.