Chattisgarh High Court
Tanuj Saluja vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 May, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:21175
Digitally
signed by
AKHILESH NAFR
AKHILESH BEOHAR
BEOHAR Date:
2026.05.06
17:37:22
+0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 991 of 2026
1. Tanuj Saluja, S/o Ghanshyam Saluja, aged about 43 Years, R/o Bus
Stand Basna, Police Station and Tehsil Basna, District Mahasamund,
Chhattisgarh.
2. Ranbeer Singh Chhabda @ Vicky Chhabda, S/o Lal Singh Chhabda,
aged about 44 Years, R/o Jagdishpur Road, Basna, Police Station and
Tehsil Basna, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.
3. Ghanshyam Singh Saluja, S/o Kartar Singh Saluja, aged about 69
Years, R/o Main Road Basna, Police Station and Tehsil Basna, District
Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.
4. Dipesh Mishra, S/o Hemsagar, aged about 31 Years, R/o Village
Khemda, Police Station and Tehsil Basna, District Mahasamund,
Chhattisgarh. ...Appellants
versus
• State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Basna, District
Mahasamund Chhattisgarh (Wrongly typed in the Cause Title of the
Impugned Order as Deputy Superintendent of Police Ajak
Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh )
... Respondent
For Appellants : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr. Sandeep Patel, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Ms. Laxmin Kashyap, Panel Lawyer.
For Objector/Complainant Mr. Mohammad Sohail Khan, Advocate.
(Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal)
Order on Board
06/05/2026
2
1. This appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, “the Act
of 1989”) has been preferred by the appellants against the order dated
28.03.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989,
Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.), in Bail Application No.
299/2026, whereby the application filed by the appellants under
Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023,
apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.198/2019
registered at Police Station Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.), for the
offences punishable under Sections 294, 34 and 506 of the Indian
Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act of 1989, has
been rejected.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant is the owner
and in possession of diverted land bearing Khasra No.
1406/1, admeasuring 1076 sq. ft., situated at Village Khemda, Basna,
District Mahasamund and she had started construction of her
residential house on the said land. It is alleged that on 21.04.2019 at
about 08:00 a.m., the appellants, in furtherance of their common
intention, came to the spot, abused the complainant in filthy language,
intentionally insulted and intimidated her knowing her caste, and also
threatened to demolish her house, thereby causing fear. Thereafter, the
complainant lodged an FIR on 24.04.2019, on the basis of which,
offences under Sections 294, 34 and 506 of IPC were registered
against the appellants.
3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the
appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present
3
case. He further submits that the alleged incident took place on
21.04.2019; however, the FIR was lodged on 24.04.2019, i.e., after a
delay of three days, without any satisfactory explanation. It is further
submitted that, as per the FIR, offences under Sections 294, 34 and
506 of the IPC have been registered against the appellants, and no
offence under the Act, 1989 has been alleged therein. Thus, on the
basis of the contents of the FIR lodged by the complainant, who is a
highly educated government teacher, no offence under the Act of 1989
is made out against the appellants. It is further contended that the
complainant subsequently filed an application under Section 156(3) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the learned Special
Judge on 19.07.2019, i.e., after a gap of nearly three months from the
FIR dated 24.04.2019. Thereafter, her statement was recorded on
15.01.2020, wherein, for the first time, she alleged that the appellants
had abused her by referring to her caste. Learned Senior Counsel also
submits that the police report dated 20.11.2019 (Annexure P-6)
indicates that there was a land dispute between the complainant and
the appellants. It is further submitted that the appellants were granted
bail by the Court of learned JMFC, Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.)
on 13.08.2019. Thereafter, upon framing of charges under Sections
294, 34 and 506-II of the IPC, the case was fixed for prosecution
evidence; however, the complainant failed to appear, and consequently,
non-bailable warrants were issued against the prosecution witnesses
by the learned JMFC on 17.06.2025. Subsequently, the
complainant/prosecution filed an application under Section 323 of the
Cr.P.C., which was allowed on 14.08.2025, and the case was
committed to the Court of the Special Judge. It is thus submitted that
4
the present case is a clear instance of misuse of the provisions of law,
instituted with the intent to exert pressure upon the appellants in
connection with an ongoing civil dispute between the complainant and
appellant No. 3. Since no offence under the Act of 1989 is prima facie
made out from the FIR, the appellants are entitled to the grant of
anticipatory bail. In support of his submissions, learned Senior Counsel
has placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Prithvi Raj Chauhan vs. Union of India & Others1 and Kiran vs.
Rajkumar2.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State as well as the objector
oppose the prayer for anticipatory bail and submit that a prima facie
case under the Act, 1989 is made out against the appellants. It is
further submitted that, in view of the bar contained under Section 18 of
the Act of 1989, the appellants are not entitled to the grant of
anticipatory bail. Hence, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.
5. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the
parties and upon perusal of the record, it prima facie appears that the
complainant is a well-educated lady and has been working as a teacher
in a Government school since 2008. Being a literate person, she was
expected to disclose all material facts relating to the alleged incident at
the earliest point of time. However, the FIR, as initially lodged, does not
disclose any allegation attracting the provisions of the Act, 1989. The
allegation with regard to caste-based abuse appears to have been
introduced subsequently at a belated stage. There is also a delay of
three days in lodging the FIR, for which, no satisfactory explanation has
1 (2020) 4 SCC 727
2 2025 AIR (SC) 4083
5
been furnished. The material available on record further indicates that
there exists a land dispute between the parties. It also appears that the
allegation under the Act of 1989 has been made as an afterthought.
6. In the matter of Kiran vs. Rajkumar (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has held that in paras 6.1 & 602 which read as under:-
“6.1 The absolute nature of bar, however, could be read and has
to be applied with a rider. In a given case where on the face of it
the offence under Section 3 of the Act is found to have not been
made out and that the accusations relating to the commission of
such offence are devoid of prima facie merits, the Court has a
room to exercise the discretion to grant anticipatory bail to the
accused under Section 438 of the Code.
6.2 Non-making of prima facie case about the commission of
offence is perceived to be such a situation where the Court can
arrive at such a conclusion in the first blush itself or by way of the
first impression upon very reading of the averments in the FIR.
The contents and the allegations in the FIR would be decisive in
this regard. Furthermore, in reaching a conclusion as to whether a
prima facie offence is made out or not, it would not be permissible
for the Court to travel into the evidentiary realm or to consider
other materials, nor the Court could advert to conduct a mini trial.”
7. Similarly, in the matter of Prithvi Raj Chauhan (supra), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held in 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.”
8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, and in the
light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the FIR, as initially lodged, does not
disclose any allegation of caste-based abuse nor does it invoke the
provisions of the Act, 1989. Even the names of the appellants do not
find mention therein with regard to the alleged offence. Consequently,
the bar contained under Section 18 of the Act, 1989 is not attracted.
6
Further, considering that more than six years have elapsed since the
alleged incident and the trial is likely to take considerable time, this
Court finds it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the
appellants.
9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated
28.03.2026 is set aside. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the
appellants in connection with the aforesaid crime number, they shall be
released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.25,000/- each with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of
the concerned arresting/investigating officer, with the following terms
and conditions:
(i) that the appellants shall make themselves available for
interrogation/medical test etc. before the concerned
investigating officer as and when required;
(ii) that the appellants 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 appellants shall not act in any manner which
will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and
(iv) that the appellants shall appear before the concerned
trial Court on each and every date given to them by the
said Court till disposal of the trial.
Sd/-
(Radhakishan Agrawal)
Judge
Akhilesh
7
