[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Ramsahai vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 9 April, 2026
1
Digitally
signed by
ALLENA
ALLENA ANNAJEE
ANNAJEE RAO
RAO Date:
2026.04.10
13:43:28
+0530
2026:CGHC:16362
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 382 of 2026
1 - Ramsahai S/o Shri Harinarayan Gupta Aged About 25 Years R/o Gram
Saagobandh (Belhratola), Thana Babhani, District Sonbhdra (U.P.)
2 - Ramdulare Gupta S/o Shri Harinarayan Gupta Aged About 22 Years
R/o Gram Saagobandh (Belhratola), Thana Babhani, District Sonbhdra
(U.P.) ... Applicants
versus
State of Chhattisgarh through District Magistrate, Balrampur-Ramanujganj
(C.G.) ... Respondent
For the appellants : Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Government Advocate
(Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Order on Board
09/04/2026
1. Apprehending arrest in Crime No. 46/2025 registered at P.S. Sanawal,
District Balrampur (C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 115(2),
296, 351(2), 109(1), 190, 191(2), 191(3) of BNS and Sections 3(1)(r),(s),(g),
3(2-5) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the appellants have
filed this appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Act, 1989 for grant of
anticipatory bail.
2. By the impugned order dated 20.01.2026 passed by the learned
Special Judge, (SC/ST (POA) Act, Balrampur, the application of applicant for
grant of anticipatory bail has been rejected, which is also under challenge in
this appeal.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that complainant Ramsai Gond filed a
report to the effect that on 11.8.2025 at about 09.00 am, when he was
ploughing his field, accused Nanddev Gupta, Lalan Gupta, Buchun Gupta,
and other other people came armed with sticks, Lathi, Tangi and restrained
the complainant party from cultivating the land and hurled abuses and
assaulted him saying that the field belongs to them and also further
threatened to kill him. On the said report, the police registered the crime.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that initially names of these
two appellants are not named in the FIR lodged by Ramsai Gond , but two
months later the present applicants were made accused as their names were
mentioned in the statements of witnesses Shankar, Vidhya Sagar and Vijay.
She next submits that neither any specific allegation was made against these
applicants showing their participation in the incident nor any seizure was
shown to be made from them. She further submits that the charge sheet has
been filed against 22 accused persons and these appellants have not
participated in the incident, therefore, they may be enlarged on anticipatory
bail.
5. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail
and supports the order of the trial Court. He submits that the bar created
under Section 18 and 18A of the Act strictly applies, prohibiting the grant of
anticipatory bail.
6. The victim is not connected to VC from the concerned DLSA despite
service of notice, therefore, their opinion could not be recorded.
7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the
documents available on record.
8. It is to be noted that the bar so provided in Section 18 of the Act was
considered by the Supreme Court in Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v.
State of Maharashtra reported in (2018) 6 SCC 454 wherein it was held
that there is no absolute bar against grant of anticipatory bail if the person is
able to show prima facie case that he has not committed any atrocity and the
allegations have been made malafidely. The said judgment was further
reiterated by the Supreme Court in Prithvi Raj Chauhan vs. Union of India
and others (2020) 4 SCC 727 wherein it has been held at at para 32, which
reads as under :
"32. 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."
9. Applying the above position of law to the facts of the present case, if
the contents of the FIR are examined, prima facie, it appears that it does not
speak out the names of these appellants as accused nor it discloses any of
their specific role in the incident, therefore, the appellants are able to show
that they have not committed any atrocity and the bar created under section
18 of the Act would not be attracted in this case.
10. Having thus considered the facts and circumstances of the case in the
light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above referred cases,
I am of the opinion that it is a fit case where the appellants can be granted
anticipatory bail.
11. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated
20.01.2026 passed by the Trial Court is set aside.
12. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the appellants in connection
with Crime No. 46/2025 registered at P.S. Sanwal for the aforesaid offences,
they shall be released on bail by the officer arresting them on each of them
executing a personal bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety each in the
like sum to the satisfaction of the officer arresting them or the concerned
Investigating Officer. The appellants shall also abide by the following
conditions :-
(i) that they shall make themselves available for interrogation
before the investigating officer as and when required;
(ii) that they shall not, directly or indirectly, make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted
with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from
disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer;
(iii) that they shall not act in any manner which will be
prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and
(iv) that they shall appear before the trial Court on each and
every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of
the trial.
C.c. as per rules.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
Rao
