[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Manharan Pandey vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 April, 2026
Digitally
signed by
SOURABH
SOURABH PATEL
PATEL Date:
2026.04.06
17:02:51
+0530
1
2026:CGHC:15560
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 691 of 2026
1 - Manharan Pandey S/o Late Jeevanlal Pandey, Aged About 40
Years, R/o Village- Nagaridih Thana Shivrinarayan District- Janjgir-
Champa (C.G.).
2 - Gagan Pandey S/o Manharan Pandey, Aged About 20 Years, R/o
Village- Nagaridih Thana Shivrinarayan District- Janjgir-Champa
(C.G.).
3 - Dhaneshwari @ Chandni Pandey W/o Hem Prasad Pandey, Aged
About 35 Years, R/o Village- Nagaridih Thana Shivrinarayan District-
Janjgir-Champa (C.G.).
4 - Smt. Bhagwati Pandey W/o Late Jeevanlal Pandey, Aged About 68
Years, R/o Village- Nagaridih Thana Shivrinarayan District- Janjgir-
Champa (C.G.).
5 - Kishan Pandey S/o Late Jeevanlal Pandey, Aged About 30 Years,
R/o Village- Nagaridih Thana Shivrinarayan District- Janjgir-Champa
(C.G.).
6 - Vijay Pandey S/o Late Jeevanlal Pandey, Aged About 35 Years,
R/o Village- Nagaridih Thana Shivrinarayan District- Janjgir-Champa
(C.G.).
7 - Darsu @ Dilharan Pandey S/o Late Jeevanlal Pandey, Aged About
38 Years, R/o Village- Nagaridih Thana Shivrinarayan District-
Janjgir-Champa (C.G.).
... Appellants
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- District- Magistrate P.S. Ajk
District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.).
... Respondent
For Appellants : Mr. V.K. Pandey, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Ms. Swati Raj Gupta, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Order On Board
06/04/2026
1. This appeal u/s 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 appellants against the order
dated 27.02.2026 passed by the Special Judge, SC & ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Janjgir, District - Janjgir-Champa
(C.G.) in B.A. No. 179/2026, whereby the application filed by
the appellants under Section 482 of BNSS for grant of
anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 02/2026
registered at Police Station AJK, District - Janjgir-Champa
(C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(2),
191(2) of BNS and Section 3(2)(V)(a), 3(1)(n)(ध) of SC & ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been rejected.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 06.01.2026, the
complainant, wife of appellant no.1, lodged a report at the
concerned Police Station stating that she got married to
appellant no.1 on 07.08.2025 as per Hindu rites and rituals at
Mankadai Temple, Village Khokhara, District Janjgir Champa
(C.G.). However, a few days later, appellant no.1/husband,
along with other appellants/family members (Gagan Pandey,
Chandni Pandey, Bhagwati Pandey, Kishan Pandey, Vijay
Pandey, and Darshu Pandey), started abusing her, saying she
belonged to a lower caste, calling her derogatory names, and
threatening her life. They didn't allow her to cook or enter the
home temple, and when she did cook, they wouldn't eat the
food. They repeatedly insulted her, saying she's from a lower
caste, and her husband told her he wouldn't keep her at home,
eventually leaving her at her parents' house, threatening her
and her family if she took any action. Based on the above,
offences have been registered against the appellants.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants
are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. He
further submits that there is a delay of 2 months and 20 days in
lodging the FIR. There was a love marriage between appellant
no.1 and the complainant, solemnized as per Hindu rites and
rituals. Appellants no.2 to 7 are family members of appellant
no.1, and they had solemnized the marriage happily with the
consent of both parties. However, the complainant wants to live
separately, and appellant no.1 was not ready, leading to the
complainant falsely implicating all the appellants in this case.
The appellants have a clean record with no criminal
antecedents, and all the offences levelled against them are
bailable in nature; therefore, they may be granted anticipatory
bail.
4. Learned State counsel opposes the prayer made by the counsel
for the appellants, submitting 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
appellants are not eligible for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence,
the appeal should be dismissed.
5. On 30.03.2026, the victim appeared virtually from the
concerned DLSA and recorded 'objection' in granting bail to the
appellants.
6. Heard learned counsel 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 appellants/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 appellants, this Court does not find any error
or illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial Court.
8. Accordingly, the present appeal for grant of anticipatory bail
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
Sourabh P.
