Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Chhattisgarh Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal granted anticipatory bail to two appellants accused under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Court allowed the appeal challenging the rejection of anticipatory bail by the Special Judge and held that the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act was not applicable in the present matter. The High Court noted the absence of any caste reference in the First Information Report (FIR) and considered the fact that a settlement had been reached between the parties.

The Court further directed that in the event of arrest, the appellants should be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with specified conditions. The decision was rendered after examining judicial precedents laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra and Prithvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India.

Also Read: Supreme Court Strikes Down Suo Motu Conviction In Appeal By Accused | Says High Courts Cannot Invoke Revisional Powers To Enhance Punishment

The appellants in this matter are Dharku Ram and Mahavir Chouhan, both residents of Village Kaliya under Police Station Narayanpur, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. An Ejahar (FIR) was registered against them on 14.02.2025 in relation to Crime No. 15/2025 for offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 296, 3(5), 351(2) & 117(2) of the BNS and Sections 3(2) (va), 3(1)(r)(s) & 3(1)(d) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

According to the prosecution, on the date of the incident, the complainant’s brother had visited the shop of appellant Mahavir Chouhan. The complainant and another person were positioned approximately 100 meters away. Upon hearing a commotion, they moved towards the location and allegedly witnessed appellant Dharku Ram abusing the complainant’s brother in offensive language and striking him with fists. Simultaneously, appellant Mahavir Chouhan allegedly hit the victim on the head with a stick, rendering him unconscious and causing bleeding from the nose, ears, and head.

The injured individual was then taken by the accused to Kunkuri for preliminary medical treatment and subsequently referred to Ambikapur for advanced care. Following these events, a complaint was lodged and an FIR registered under the aforementioned provisions.

The anticipatory bail application was initially filed before the Special Judge (Atrocities), Jashpur, as Anticipatory Bail Application No. 81/2025. The Special Judge rejected the application on 06.05.2025, citing the statutory bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act.

In their appeal before the High Court under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act, the appellants argued that the offences under the BNS were bailable and general in nature. They contended that the FIR did not demonstrate that the incident occurred on the basis of caste and that the provisions of the Atrocities Act had been invoked without prima facie justification.

Further, the appellants submitted that a mutual settlement had been reached between the parties on 19.03.2025, and noted their social standing in the village. The appellants also cited potential adverse implications on familial matters, including the impending marriage of the daughter of appellant Dharku Ram.

Counsel for the appellants relied on the judgment in Prithvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India and Others, asserting that where no prima facie case under the SC/ST Act is established, anticipatory bail can be granted despite the statutory bar.

On the contrary, the learned State Counsel opposed the bail request. The State submitted that the complainant’s statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. explicitly mentioned caste-based abuse, establishing a prima facie case under the SC/ST Act. It was further contended that the accused and the complainant belonged to the same village and were previously acquainted, which supported the assertion that the caste-based elements were deliberate.

The Court examined the factual and legal submissions and referred to the case diary. The High Court began its legal analysis by noting: "The application under Section 482 of the BNSS filed by the appellants for grant of anticipatory bail has been rejected by the trial Court taking note of the bar provided under Section 18 of the Act of SC/ST Act."

The Court then examined the applicability of the statutory bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act in light of judicial precedent. Citing Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra, the Court recorded the following key observation

"If a person is able to show that, prima facie, he has not committed any atrocity against a member of SC and ST and that the allegation was mala fide and prima facie false and that prima facie no case was made out, we do not see any justification for applying Section 18 in such cases."

The Court acknowledged that in Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan, the Supreme Court had stated: "In view of the decisions in Vilas Pandurang Pawar (2012 8 SCC 795) and Shakuntla Devi (2014 15 SCC 521), the learned ASG has rightly stated that there is no absolute bar to grant anticipatory bail if no prima facie case is made out in spite of validity of Section 18 of the Atrocities Act being upheld."

The High Court further observed: "A procedural penal provision affecting liberty of citizen must be read consistent with the concept of fairness and reasonableness."

In reference to Prithvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India, the Court stated: "As far as the provision of Section 18-A and anticipatory bail is concerned, the judgment of Mishra, J. has stated that in cases where no prima facie materials exist warranting arrest in a complaint, the court has the inherent power to direct a pre-arrest bail."

The High Court noted the timeline of the incident and FIR, both dated 14.02.2025, and recorded: "In the FIR registered in the case at hand, there is no mention of any particular caste."

The judgment also recorded the fact that a settlement had been reached between the parties on 19.03.2025.

Based on this review, the Court concluded that the statutory bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act was not attracted.

The High Court allowed the appeal and stated: "Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 06.05.2025 is set aside."

Further, it directed that: "In the event of arrest of the appellants in connection with the aforesaid crime number, they shall be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one local surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned arresting/investigating officer."

Additional conditions imposed by the Court include:

"That the appellants shall make themselves available for interrogation/medical test etc. before the concerned investigating officer as and when required."

"That the appellants shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer."

Also Read: Police Officials Must Appear In Prescribed Uniform Before Courts | Allahabad High Court Grants Bail & Raps Officer For Casual Attire And Flawed Bribery Probe

"That the appellants shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial."

"That the appellants shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Appellants: Mr. Manoj Kumar Yadav, Advocate
For the Respondents: Ms. Sunita Sahu, P.L.

Case Title: Dharku Ram and Another v. State of Chhattisgarh
Neutral Citation: 2025: CGHC:26309
Case Number: CRA No. 1032 of 2025
Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal