1 2026:CGHC:7435 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2580 of 2025 Manish Kaushik S/o Krishan Kumar Kaushik, Aged About 28 Years R/o Nipaniya, Police Station Hirri, District Bilaspur (C.G.) --- Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh through the Police Station Bilha, District Bilaspur (C.G.) --- Respondent For Applicants : Mr. T.S. Sahu Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, P.L.. CRA No. 131 of 2026 Shiddharth @ Shiddhant Sharma S/o Shailendra Sharma Aged About 20 Years R/o Village- Dev Kirari, P.O. Bitkuli, P.S. And Tahsil- Bilha, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant Versus State of Chhattisgarh through- Station House Officer, Police Station- Bilha, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Shikhar Shukla, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, P.L. ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2026.02.17 17:49:36 +0530 2 (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 10.02.2026 1. These appeals are 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. 378/2025 registered at P.S. Bilha, District Bilaspur (C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 191(3), 192, 296 331(5), 351(3), 115(2) of BNS and Section 3(1)(r) (s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Since both these appeals are relating to same crime number, they are decided by this common order. 2. By impugned orders dated 22.11.2025 & 29.11.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Bilaspur, the applications for grant of anticipatory bail have been rejected, which have been challenged in these appeals. 3. As per the prosecution case, earlier the appellants raked up a dispute about the involvement of complainant party in cow slaughtering and selling mutton by them in the locality. In this background, the complainants Sunita Ratre and Lalita Ratre have lodged the FIR on 01.09.2025 alleging that on 27.08.2025 at 2.00 p.m., the appellants have forcibly entered the houses of complainants’ locality along with other accomplice who were holding sticks, rods and swords and hurled abuses in the name of caste, intimidated and assaulted them, due to which, Sukanti Ratre, Sonu Ratre and Hemlal Ratre of the locality suffered injuries. The people of the neighborhood got very scared and fled the locality. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that due to rivalry in village, the complainant party lodged false report against them. They further submit that earlier the appellants-party filed a report against the complainant party on 27.08.2025 which was registered as FIR No.375/2025 about their involvement of cow 3 slaughtering and selling mutton and offence was registered against the complainant-party u/s 351(3), 115(2), 325, 3(5) of BNS and Sections 4, 5, 10 of C.G. Krishak Parikshan Adhiniyam, 2004. Learned counsels further submit that two other similarly placed accused have been enlarged on regular bail by the trial Court relating to Crime No.378/2025, therefore, the present appellants may be granted anticipatory bail. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that as an arm twist, a false counter report was filed by the appellants which was registered as FIR No.375/2025 and the medical report does not show any injuries caused to the appellant party. She further submits that out of 6 accused, 2 have been granted regular bail by the trial Court in Crime No.378/2025, therefore, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to these appellants be rejected. 6. The victims have appeared in person before this court on 06.01.2026 and 19.01.2026 and raised objection to granting anticipatory 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 27.08.2025, the present appellants along with other accomplice namely Akanksha Kaushik, Siddharth Sharma, Raja Sahu, Suraj Rajput, Thakur Ram Singh and a large number other members of the organization entered the houses of complainants’ locality, abused and assaulted them. The accused were holding sticks, rods and swords. The FIR further speaks that while assaulting , the accused said that they will not let the people of the low caste “Chamar” live in the neighborhood, they insulted, abused and assaulted the complainant party by creating panic in the locality, and due to assault, Sukanti Ratre, Sonu Ratre and Hemlal Ratre sustained injuries. 9. If the FIR prima facie discloses the commission of an offence, specifically alleging caste-based abuses and atrocities under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the bar created under 4 Section 18 and 18A of the Act strictly applies, prohibiting the grant of anticipatory bail. 10. Since in the instant cases the FIRs lodged by the complainants clearly speak about the acts committed by these appellants along with other accomplice that they have assaulted the complainant party by hurling caste line abuses and threatened them, it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against the appellants, at this stage. 11. Thus having considered the over all facts and circumstances of the case; submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the bar created under the Special Act, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the appellants. 12. In view of the above discussion, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the appellants. 13. Accordingly, both the appeals are rejected. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao