Gulab Singh Sengar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:1794

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2342 of 2025

¶5

1 - Gulab Singh Sengar S/o Ganpat Singh, Aged About 46 Years Caste- Kshatriya, R/o Parasi, Tahsil- Marwahi, District GourelaPendra- Marwahi (C.G.)

¶6

2 - Sanju @ Shailendra Kewat S/o Amarnath Kewat, Aged About 40 Years Caste- Kewat, R/o Parasi, Tahsil- Marwahi, District Gourela- Pendra- Marwahi (C.G.)

¶7

3 - Karan @ Pappu Kushwaha S/o Lakhan, Aged About 40 Years Caste Kushwaha, R/o Parasi, Tahsil- Marwahi, District GourelaPendra- Marwahi (C.G.)

¶8

4 - Krishna Kumar S/o Rewalal, Aged About 29 Years Caste Kewat, R/o Parasi, Tahsil- Marwahi, District Gourela- PendraMarwahi (C.G.)

¶9

5 - Raju @ Rajkumar Sengar S/o Kalyan Singh, Aged About 51 Years Caste- Kshatriya, R/o Parasi, Tahsil- Marwahi, District Gourela- Pendra- Marwahi (C.G.)

¶10

6 - Bihanlal S/o Bodhan, Aged About 73 Years Caste- Kewat, R/o Parasi, Tahsil- Marwahi, District Gourela- Pendra- Marwahi (C.G.)

¶11

7 - Ghanshyam Prajapati S/o Gorelal Prajapati, Aged About 26 Years Caste- Kumhar, R/o Parasi, Tahsil- Marwahi, District Gourela- Pendra- Marwahi (C.G.)

¶12

8 - Uday @ Chhotu Rajak S/o Munna Rajak, Aged About 28 Years Caste- Dhobi, R/o Parasi, Tahsil- Marwahi, District Gourela- Pendra- Marwahi (C.G.)

¶13

Digitally signed by HEERALAL HEERALAL SAHUDate: SAHU 2026.01.12 17:56:05 +0530

¶14

2

¶15

9 - Anil Kewat S/o Nagendra, Aged About 26 Years R/o Parasi, Tahsil- Marwahi, District Gourela- Pendra- Marwahi (C.G.) 10 - Ankush S/o Durga Prasad, Aged About 28 Years Caste Kewat, R/o Parasi, Tahsil- Marwahi, District Gourela- PendraMarwahi (C.G.)

¶16

11 - Vinod S/o Besahan, Aged About 28 Years Caste- Yadav, R/o Parasi, Tahsil- Marwahi, District Gourela- Pendra- Marwahi (C.G.)

¶17

... Appellants

¶18

versus

¶19

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station- Marwahi, District- Gourela- Pendra- Marwahi (C.G.)

¶20

... Respondent

¶21

For Appellants : Mr. Aditya Khare, Advocate and Mr. Neeraj Jain, Adv. For State : Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, P.L.

¶22

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board

¶23

12/ 01/ 2026

¶24

This appeal has been filed by the accused/appellants under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 r/w Section 482 of BNSS for grant of anticipatory bail, against the order dated 19.09.2025 passed by learned Special Judge SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Bail Application No. 2004/2025 whereby the bail application filed by the appellants under Section 482 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 has been rejected.

¶25

The appellants are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.110/2025, registered at Police Station –

¶26

3

¶27

Marwahi, District-Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 191(2), 127(2), 296, 351(2), 115(2) of BNS, 2023 and Sections 3(2)(5), (r), (s), 3(1)(e), 3(1)(d), 3(1)(c) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act 1989').

¶28

The facts of the case, in brief, are that complainant Onkar Singh maravi posted as Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Parasi, lodged an oral report at the police station – Marwahi, alleging therein that on the basis of complaint relating to 15th Finance, an enquiry was directed to be conducted at Gram Panchayat, Parasi on 02.07.2025 and for conducting enquiry committee comprising by Smt. Vandana Paikra, Assistant Extension Officer, Marwahi, Shiv Prasad Markam, Senior Technical Account Audit and Taxation Officer, were come to the Gram Panchayat Bhawan, and during the enquiry proceedings, the appellants abused the complainant in the name of caste, closed the gate from outside, and after some time, the gate was opened and the complainant came out from the building. Thereafter, the accused persons took the complainant towards Segra Mohalla, where they pressurised the complainant to walk over the muddy place. Based on this offence has been registered against the present appellants.

¶29

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the instant case. He further submits that the up-sarpanch namely Jawahar Lal Kewat along with the present appellants made complaint before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Marwahi regarding misappropriation of panchayat fund by the complainant with the help of newly

¶30

4

¶31

elected Sarpanch, therefore, only for settling score with the appellants, the complainant has made a false complaint against the present appellants on 10.07.2025 with inordinate and unexplained delay of 8 days. He next submits that on the basis of the complaint made by the appellants and the up-sarpanch, the enquiry was conducted by the three-member Committee and prepared a detailed report, as per the enquiry report dated 25.09.2025 (Annexure-A-5), the complainant and sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Parasi, have embezzled the panchayat fund. He also submits that the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are not attracted against the present appellants. The prohibition of Section 18 of the Special Act does not apply. The 'order in question' of the trial court is not valid and appropriate; therefore, the appellants may be granted anticipatory bail.

¶32

On the other hand, learned counsel for the state opposes the anticipatory bail application of the appellants and submits that the application is liable to be dismissed.

¶33

On 24.11.2025, the victim appeared through V.C. from the concerned DLSA and objected to the grant of anticipatory bail to the appellants.

¶34

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶35

The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the matter of Pavas Sharma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and another (CRA No. 806/2020, order dated 22.01.2021) , has elaborately dealt with the issue pertaining to offence under the Act, 1989 and finds that merely because offence under Section 3(2)(V)(a) of the Act, 1989 was registered against the applicant, learned court below rejected the application holding it to be not maintainable in view of the provisions

¶36

5

¶37

contained under Section 18 of the Act of 1989, without taking into consideration the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Prathvi Raj Chouhan Vs. Union of

¶38

India and Others1 . Even though, offence under the Act of 1989 is registered, where application for grant of anticipatory bail is filed, the Court is required to apply its mind to the relevant provisions of law and considerations as specified by the Supreme Court in the case of Prathvi (supra) and if material on record leads to satisfaction that the complaint does not make out a prima facie case, for applicability of the provisions of the Act of 1989, the bar created under Section 18 of the Act of 1989 shall not apply and in appropriate cases of exceptional nature, benefit of anticipatory bail could be admitted to the applicant. The learned Court below committed patent illegality in mechanically rejecting the bail application. Order of rejection, therefore, cannot be sustained in law and, therefore, set aside.

¶39

After hearing counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and looking to the material available on record it is evident that on the basis of complaint made by the appellants an enquiry was conducted by the Committee and vide enquiry report dated 25.09.2025 it was found that the complainant and sarpanch have embezzled the panchayat fund and the report of the alleged incident against the present appellants has been lodged by the complainant after a delay of 8 days.

¶40

In such a situation, keeping all the above in view and in the light of above judgment, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the appellants. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed . It is directed that in the event of arrest of the appellants in

¶41

1 (2020) 4 SCC 727

¶42

6

¶43

connection with 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 or the Court concerned, as the case may be, with the following terms and conditions:

¶44

(i) that the appellants shall make themselves available for interrogation/medical test etc. before the concerned investigating officer as and when required;

¶45

(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;

¶46

(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 trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

¶49

H.L. Sahu

Gulab Singh Sengar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gulab Singh Sengar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amirchand Vishwakarma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Lalit Agrawal

Xyz Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Duleshwar Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ishwar Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jagjeevan Ram Suryawanshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh