Chattisgarh High Court
Shamim @ Chhotu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 August, 2025
1
Digitally
signed by
SOURABH
SOURABH PATEL
PATEL Date:
2025.08.12
17:15:02
+0530
2025:CGHC:40285
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 1550 of 2025
1 - Shamim @ Chhotu S/o Naeemuddin, Aged About 20 Years, R/o
Village Virendranagar, Police Chowki Dindo, P.S. Trikunda District
Balrampur Ramanujganj C.G.
2 - Aslam S/o Fakruddin Siddqui, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Village
Virendranagar, Police Chowki Dindo, P.S. Trikunda District
Balrampur Ramanujganj C.G.
--- Appellants
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S.
Trikunda, District- Balrampur Ramanujganj C.G.
--- Respondent
CRA No. 1554 of 2025
1 – Inamul Haq Ansari @ Sibu S/o Sirajul Haq Ansari Aged About 36
Years R/o Village Virendranagar, P.S. Trikunda, District Balrampur-
Ramanujganj C.G.
—Appellant
Versus
1 – State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S.
Trikunda, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj C.G.
— Respondent
For Appellants : Mr. Nishikant Sinha, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Mr. K. K. Baharani, Panel Lawyer.
Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
2
Order On Board
11/08/2025
1. These appeal u/s 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short
“the SC/ST Act”) have been preferred by the appellants, CRA
No. 1550/2025 filed against the order dated 17.07.2025 passed
by the Special Judge, SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
Balrampur, Place Ramanujganj (C.G.) in B.A. No. 354/2025
and CRA No. 1554/2025 filed against the order dated
23.07.2025 passed by the Special Judge, SC & ST (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, Balrampur, Place Ramanujganj (C.G.) in B.A.
No. 374/2025, whereby the applications filed by the appellants
under Section 482 of BNSS apprehending their arrest in
connection with Crime No. 40/2025 registered at Police Station
Trikunda, District – Balrampur, Ramanujganj (C.G.) for the
offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 3(5),
308(1) of BNS and Section 3(1)(r) of SC & ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act have been rejected.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, the complainant,
Man Singh Khairwar, lodged a report at Police Station Dindo,
Thana Trikunda, stating that on 05.07.2025, a meeting was
being held at the Gram Panchayat Bhavan, Virendranagar.
During the meeting, a dispute arose between Sachiv Jaisingh
Gond, Up-Sarpanch Inamul Haq Ansari @ Sibu and others
regarding the drafting of a proposal. As the dispute escalated,
Bhutnath Yadav began recording a video on his mobile phone.
Sami alias Chhotu objected to the video recording and started
3
abusing Bhutnath. Sami alias Chhotu and Aslam then began
physically assaulting Bhutnath. When the complainant, Man
Singh Khairwar, attempted to intervene and stop the
altercation, the accused persons abused him with filthy caste-
based slurs, threatened to kill him, and physically assaulted
him with slaps and fists. Based on the complainant’s report,
the police registered an offence under Crime No. 40/2025 at
Police Chowki Dindo, Thana Trikunda, under Sections 296,
115(2), 351(2), 3(5), and 308(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023, and Section 3(1)(d) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants
are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. It is
further submitted that appellant Inamul Haq Anseri @ Sibu (in
CRA No. 1554/2025) neither committed nor participated in the
alleged offence, and there is no allegation against him of being
involved in the fight or abusing the victim. He merely made a
proposal as the Up-Sarpanch of the village in his capacity as
Panchayat Sachiv. The allegations in the FIR do not prima facie
make out an offence under the Atrocities Act against appellant
Inamul Haq Anseri @ Sibu. Learned counsel further submits
that appellants Shamim @ Chhotu and Aslam (in CRA No.
1550/2025) have also not committed any offence as alleged
against them. The counsel argues that the bail applications
were rejected by the trial court on the ground that there is a bar
under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act. However, since the case
under the Atrocities Act is not prima facie made out, as there is
4
no mention of caste in the FIR or in the statements,
anticipatory bail should be granted to the appellants.
4. Learned State counsel, opposing the anticipatory bail, submits
that the FIR clearly alleges that appellants Shamim @ Chhotu
and Aslam (in CRA No. 1550/2025) were involved in a dispute,
physically assaulted the victim, and used filthy caste-based
slurs against the victim. Given the gravity of the offence and the
bar under Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the appellants are not
entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the appeals are
liable to be dismissed.
5. Today, victim appeared vertually from the concerned DLSA and
raised his objection in granting anticipatory bail to the
appellants.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case
diary.
7. Looking to the material available on record and the perusal of
the orders impugned, it is evident from the FIR that appellant
Inamul Haq Ansari (in CRA No. 1554/2025) has not committed
any offence. Therefore, he is entitled to the grant of anticipatory
bail.
8. Accordingly, the Criminal appeal No. 1554/2025 is allowed.
It is directed that in the event of arrest of the appellant in
connection with aforesaid crime number, he shall be released
on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.25,000/-, with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction
5
of the concerned arresting/investigating officer or the Court
concerned, as the case may be, with the following terms and
conditions:
(i) that the appellant shall make herself/himself available
for interrogation/medical test etc. before the concerned
investigating officer as and when required;
(ii) that the appellant shall not, directly or indirectly, make
any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted
with the facts of the case as to dissuade him/her from
disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
(iii) that the appellant shall not act in any manner which
will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and
(iv) that the appellant shall appear before the trial Court on
each and every date given to her/him by the said Court till
disposal of the trial.
9. However, in CRA No. 1550/2025, there is a named FIR against
appellants Shamim @ Chhotu and Aslam, alleging offences of
caste-based abuse and physical assault. Consequently, the trial
court’s rejection of their anticipatory bail applications on this
basis is found to be proper. Considering 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 appellant Shamim @ Chhotu & Aslam, this Court
does not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the
trial Court.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal No. 1550/2025 is dismissed.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
Sourabh P.