1 2026:CGHC:17223 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 866 of 2026 Rahuljeet Singh S/o Late Vijay Singh, Aged About 30 Years R/o Ward No. 08 Ramanujganj Police Station Ramanujganj, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station Ramanujganj District Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Respondent For the appellant : Mr. Arpan Verma, Advocate For the State : Ms. Laxmin Kashyap, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 15.04.2026 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 regular bail to the appellant in Crime No. 45/2026 registered at P.S. Ramanujganj District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(3), 126(2), 132 of BNS and Section 3(2) (v), 3(1)(r) & 3(1)(s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. By impugned order dated 19.03.20266 passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocities), the application filed by the applicant for grant of regular bail has been rejected, which has been challenged in this appeal. 2 3. As per the prosecution case, on 18.03.2026, the Assistant Food Inspector Champakali Diwakar along with inspection team had gone to a Hotel/Dhabha for checking Liquefied Petroleum Gas. It was found that the proprietor of the said Hotel/Dhaba was using the Domestic Gas cylinder instead of a Commercial Cylinder. The complainant asked the proprietor that how the domestic gas cylinder is being used against norms. When the Cylinder of Dhabha was being seized, the appellant being Youtuber and the co-accused Watan Singh have started recording live-streaming the process of seizure. When the complainant asked to stop the video recording, the appellant restrained her from proceeding with government work and hurled abuses against the complainant who belongs to a Scheduled Caste and insulted her with caste based abuses and further threatened to kill her. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that no offence was committed by the appellant and since he raised certain questions at the time of recording the seizure process/live-streaming, the complainant got annoyed. He submits that initially he lodged a written report in the police station and thereafter, as a counter blast, the present FIR has been registered. He submits that the appellant is in jail since 19.03.2026; charge sheet has not been filed and there is no immediate possibility of disposal of the case, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and supports the order of the trial Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 7. Having considered the submissions made by the parties; the overall facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the nature of allegations as also the fact that the charge sheet is yet to be filed, I am not inclined to release the appellant on bail, at this stage. Accordingly, this appeal is rejected. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao