1 2026:CGHC:8073 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 139 of 2026 1 - Thirlal Sahu S/o Late Shri Udayram Sahu Aged About 55 Years (Wrongly Mentioned Theerlal In Order), R/o Village And Post Chhotekharri,tahsil Sarangarh, District - Sarangarh-Bilaigarh C.G. 2 - Ramlal Sahu S/o Late Shri Udayram Sahu Aged About 57 Years R/o Village And Post Chhotekharri,tahsil Sarangarh, District - Sarangarh- Bilaigarh C.G. 3 - Dujeshwar Sahu S/o Shri Ramlal Sahu Aged About 22 Years R/o Village And Post Chhotekharri,tahsil Sarangarh, District - Sarangarh- Bilaigarh C.G. 4 - Khileshwar Sahu S/o Shri Sitaram Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Village And Post Chhotekharri,tahsil Sarangarh, District - Sarangarh- Bilaigarh C.G. ... Appellants versus State of Chhattisgarh through the Station House Officer, Police Station- City Kotwali Sarangarh, Distt- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh C.G. ... Respondent(s) For the Appellants : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Afroj Khan, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2026.02.16 15:19:43 +0530 2 Order on Board 13/02/2026 1. This appeal is filed under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellants as they are apprehending arrest in Crime No. 649/2025 registered at P.S. City Kotwali, Sarangarh, District Sarangarh Bilaigarh for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(2), 115(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190 of BNS, 2023 and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. By impugned order dated 31.12.2025 passed by the learned trial Court Bail Petition No.1212 of 2025 the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail has been rejected, which has been challenged in this appeal. 3. The prosecution cas, in brief, is that on 02.12.2025 the complainant lodged the report against the appellants and their other family members alleging that a village meeting was held at about 8.30 a.m., wherein co- accused Punyaprakash Sahu abused the complainant in the name of caste and also caused injury on the head by Kada. It is further alleged that all the family members of co-accused Punyaprakash including the present appellants were also present and the accused persons had also assaulted the complainant and his colleagues, therefore, the report against all the family members were lodged. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the incident took place only with co-accused Punyaprakash Sahu at the time of meeting and the allegation of assault by Kada is against the said co-accused, however, the complainant has implicated all his family members including the women, therefore, no offence is made out against the appellants. He further submits 3 that one of the appellants namely Dujeshwar Sahu had eloped with a girl of different village of their same caste, took her to the village and married with her, thereafter the villagers convened a meeting and imposed a complete ban on appellants’ caste people. In this regard, appellant no.2 made a compliant to the concerned Police Station, but no action was taken thereon. As regards non-applicability of bar u/s 18 of the Special Act, he placed reliance on catena of decisions of the Supreme Court rendered in Shajan Skaria V. State of Kerala and another 2024 SCC Online SC 2249; Prithvi Raj Chouhan v. Union of India and others (2020) 4 SCC 727 ; Bharat Booshan Aggarwal v. State of Kerala (2022) 19 SCC 401; Shubhasgh Kashinath Mahajan Vs. State of Maharashtra (2018) 6 SCC 454 and submits that the bar created under section 18 of the Special Act is not attracted to grant anticipatory bail in this case, however, the trial Court has rejected the bail application holding that u/s 482 of BNSS 2023 the persons committing offences under the Special Act are prohibited from being granted anticipatory bail, which cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and supports the order of the trial Court. He submits that pursuant to the complaint dated 03.12.2025, investigation was conducted and thereafter named FIR was filed and in the assault, injuries were also caused to Amar Singh, Ganesh Singh etc. 6. The victim has appeared through VC from the concerned DLSA and objected to bail. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 8. In the instant case, named FIR has been filed which shows that on 02.12.2025 village meeting was going on and at about 9.00 a.m., accused 4 Ramlal Sahu, Thirlal Sahu, Sitaram Sahu, Kartikeshwar Sahu, Dujeshwar Sahu, Bhupendra Sahu, Khileshwar Sahu, Punyaprakash Sahu, Savitri Sahu, America Sahu came with Tangiya, Lathi and hurled caste based abuses in the name of Gond, Godiya, Adivasi. When the complainant objected such abuses, co-accused Punyaprakash Sahu assaulted the complainant and abused him in the name of caste. 9. Since the FIR clearly mentioned the names of accused persons alleging that in the village meeting they had come and abused the complainant party in the name of caste, it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against the appellants, at this stage and the bar created u/s 18 of the Special Act is not attracted. Therefore, considering the fact that specific allegations have been made in the named FIR against these appellants and other co-accused, the case laws relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants are not applicable to the present case. 10. In view of the above discussion, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the appellants. Accordingly, this appeal is rejected. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao