Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SHUBHAM SINGH SINGH RAGHUVANSHI RAGHUVANSHI Date:

2026.02.17

17:22:30 +0530

2026:CGHC:8325 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 235 of 2026 Shivkumar Yadav S/o. Devnandan, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Jhampidaraha, Tahsil Bagicha, P.S. Bagicha, District Jashpur C.G.

... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Bagicha, District Jashpur C.G.

... Respondent/State For Appellant : Ms. Apoorva Ghore, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Monika Dey, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

Order On Board

16.02.2026

1. The victim appeared through virtual mode from concerned DLSA and raised objection in granting anticipatory bail to the appellant.

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

09.01.2026, passed by learned Special Judge, (SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities) Act Jashpur, District Jashpur Bail Application No.03/2026 whereby, the application filed by the appellant under Section 482 of BNSS apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.281/2025 registered at Police Station Bagicha, District Jashpur (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(3), 115(2), 109, 191(3) of BNS and Sections 3 (1)(r), 3(1)(s) & 3 (2)(v) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 has been rejected.

3. In this case there are total 6 accused persons out of which 5 have already been arrested. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that complainant/victim Sajan Ram filed a complaint at Police Station Bagicha, Jashpur, alleging that on 30.11.2025, when he and his family were fencing and plowing their land, co-accused Devanandan Yadav and his family members including the appellant herein, armed with sticks, stones, and axes, assaulted the complainant, his family, and villagers, due to which they sustained injuries and taken to the hospital. On report being lodged by the complainant, offence under the aforesaid Sections has been registered against the appellant and other co-accused.

4. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that the offence under Atrocities Act is not made out. The FIR does not disclose that the crime was committed on the basis of caste. None of the victim/injured sustained grievous injuries. Since, the case under Atrocities Act is prima facie not made out as per the FIR, anticipatory bail may be granted. She further submits that the appellant is the Principal of Shiv Model Public School, Bagicha and on the date of incident, he went with children of his school to Mainpat, Ambikapur for educational tour. In support of this statement, she has filed relevant school documents and photograph of the tour (Annexure A-5). Further, there was a land dispute between the parties, therefore, the appellant has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. Further, a counter case (FIR No.282/2025) has been registered by brother of the appellant against complainant party, in which name of the appellant is also not mentioned. Hence, it is prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the appellant may be granted benefit of anticipatory bail.

5. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, opposes the anticipatory bail, submits that the injured/victim and the appellant known to each others prior to the incident as they living in a same village. Name of the appellant is mentioned in the FIR. Further, a case of atrocity is made out against the appellant and he is not eligible for grant of anticipatory bail considering the bar under section 18 of the Atrocities Act. Hence, the appeal may 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 appellant 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. It is, however, to be noted at this stage th