Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SHUBHAM SINGH SINGH RAGHUVANSHI RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2026.02.03 16:53:52 +0530

2026:CGHC:5934 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 154 of 2026

1 - Smt. Preeti Goswami W/o Rameshwar Goswami Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Kohila Devri Limbhantha, Thana Baloda, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.)

2 - Dhaneshwar Goswami S/o Late Kaushal Giri Goswami Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Kohila Devri Limbhantha, Thana Baloda, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.)

3 - Bhuvneshwar Goswami S/o Late Kaushal Giri Goswami Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Kohila Devri Limbhantha, Thana Baloda, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.)

... Appellants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, District- Janjgir Champa (C.G.) Through P.S. Baloda, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.)

... Respondent/State (Cause-title is taken from CIS)

For Appellant : Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

Order On Board

03.02.2026

1. The victim along with her son appeared in person and raised objection in granting anticipatory bail to the Appellants.

2. This appeal u/s 14-A(2) of 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 learned Special Judge, S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa C.G. in Bail Application No.02/2026 whereby the application filed by the appellants under Section 482 of BNSS apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.259/2025 registered at Police Station Baloda (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 3(5) of BNS and Section 3(2)(va), 3 (1)(r)(s)

of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been rejected.

3. The case of prosecution, in short, is that complainant Raju Anant, states that on 29.06.2025, at around 5:00 PM, he was at his home when Rameshwar Goswami came to his doorstep and started abusing him with obscene language related to his mother and sister over an old land dispute. When the complainant asked him to stop, Rameshwar threatened him and started beating him with a stick. The complainant's wife, Preeti Anant, sister Rajni, and son Rudra intervened, and Rameshwar also abused and beat them with a stick, causing injuries to Preeti's left wrist, Rajni's wrists, and Rudra's back. Laxmi Prasad Anant witnessed the incident. The allegation against the appellants is that they accompanied the co-accused Rameshwar on the alleged act. Based on above, offence under the aforesaid Sections has been registered against the appellants.

4. The counsel for the appellants argues that the FIR doesn't mention the Special Act, and the appellants' names are not in the FIR. Also, the trial Court's order sheet (03.01.2026) shows a counter-case (Crime No. 260/2025) was filed by Appellant No.1, Preeti Goswami, against complainant, Raju Anant. The Counsel further submits that the offences registered under BNS are bailable and of general nature. The offence under Atrocities Act is not made out. The FIR does not disclose that the crime was committed on the basis of caste. Since, the case under Atrocities Act is prima facie not made out as per the FIR, anticipatory bail should be granted. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on Prathvi Raj Chouhan Vs.

Union of India and Others.

5. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, opposes the anticipatory bail and submits that a case of atrocity is made out against the appellants and they are not eligible for grant of anticipatory bail considering the bar under section 18 of the Atrocities Act. Hence, the appeal should be dismissed.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. 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