1 2026:CGHC:12776 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 574 of 2026 Taranjeet Singh Bhatiya S/o Ravindra Singh Bhatiya Aged About 25 Years R/o Budimai Mandir Raigarh Tehsil And District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station - Chakradhar Nagar District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Priya Sharma, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 17.03.2026 1. The victim is not connected through virtual mode though notice has been served. 2. This appeal under Section 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 appellant against the order dated 12.01.2026 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Raigarh (C.G.) whereby the anticipatory bail application filed by the appellant in respect of Crime No.219/2025 registered at Police Station Chakradhar Nagar, BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2026.03.18 18:08:23 +0530 2 District Raigarh for the offence punishable under Sections 118(1), 126(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 296, 351(3) of BNS and Section 3 (2)(v) of the SC/ST Act has been rejected. 3. As per the prosecution case, on 25.05.2025, at about 1:30 a.m., while the complainant Paskal Tirkey was returning from a relative's house in Village Lamidarha, near Vijaypur Petrol Pump, appellant Taranjeet Bhatia with co-accused Manish Bihari, Babludas Mahant and Ankush Thakur asked him, "Where are your brothers and grandfathers? Do you also live with them?" The accused then started abusing him and assaulted by grabbing his hair, causing injuries to his back and abdomen. During the struggle, the accused forcibly snatched a gold chain from his neck. The complainant managed to escape into the nearby forest to save his life and visited the hospital with his family the following morning. Subsequently, a report was lodged in this regard by the complainant at Police Station Chakradharnagar against the appellant and co-accused persons. The anticipatory bail application filed by the appellant was rejected by the trial Court vide impugned order dated 12.01.2026 leading to the filing of this appeal for grant of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with the said offence. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. He submits that no offence has been committed by the appellant only on the ground that the complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste. He submits that co-accused Manish Bihari and Ankush Thakur have already granted regular bail by the trial Court and similar allegations have been levelled against the present appellant. Therefore, considering all these facts, anticipatory bail ought to be granted to the appellant. 3 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the said prayer and submits that the complainant was hospitalized for 2 days due to injuries sustained in the incident. She submits 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 appellant is not eligible for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, the appeal should be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing 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 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 appellant, this Court does not find any error or illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. 8. Accordingly, the present appeal 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 Khatai