Bail may be denied in cases involving organized crime, caste-based atrocities, and anti-national slogans, where the gravity of the offense and available evidence outweigh the fact that the trial has not yet commenced.

Order On Board

1. Two victims appeared in person before this Court today and raised objection in granting bail to the appellants.

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 appellants against the order dated 03.01.2026 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) whereby the bail application filed by the appellants under Section 483 of BNSS in connection with Crime No.462/2025 registered at Police Station Sitapur, district Surguja (C.G.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 296 , 351(2), 115(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 331(7), 152, 61 BNS, Section 3 (2)(V-a) of the SC/ST Act and Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act has been rejected.

3. As per the prosecution case, on 01.12.2025 at about 8:30 p.m., when complainant Nihal Khalkho was taking Naveen Kumar Paikra, a resident of his locality, to his house, the appellants along with co-accused persons, riding motorcycle, car and Scorpio, armed with hockey sticks, rods & swords, allegedly came to take revenge for the quarrel that took place on 31.11.2025. They raised slogans like “Pakistan Zindabad” and “Nara-e-Takbir,” hurled caste-based abuses, entered the house and assaulted him with sticks and rods. They also assaulted other injured persons with sticks and rods. On report being lodged in this regard, offence under the aforesaid sections has been registered against the appellants and co-accused persons.

4. Learned Counsel for Appellants submits that the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case. She submits that it is a case of counter FIR and the appellants were not named in the FIR. She submits that two of the appellants belong to SC community, therefore, the provisions of the SC/ST Act would not be attracted against them. She further submits that the appellants are in jail since 02.12.2025 and there is no likelihood of the trial to be concluded at the earliest as it has not yet commenced, therefore, considering all these facts, the appellants may be released on bail.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the said prayer and submits that the appellants, along with other co-accused persons, have committed an organized crime. They were raising anti-national slogans and six persons suffered injuries in the said incident. Therefore, considering the nature of offence, the appellants do not deserve to be released on bail.

6. I have 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 nature and gravity of offence and the material collected and available on record against the appellants and also considering the fact that charges have not yet been framed and the trial has not commenced, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case where the appellants can be released on bail.

8. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed

9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information.