Two brothers, Vinod Agrawal and Praveen Agrawal, appealed before the Chhattisgarh High Court against the rejection of their discharge application by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Balrampur-Ramanujganj, who had framed charges against them under Sections 108 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, in connection with the alleged abetment of suicide of one Bahira, who died by hanging during a land dispute. The appellants argued that the complainant's earliest statement (merg intimation) attributed the death to unknown reasons with no suspicion raised against anyone, that a related FIR had been quashed following a compromise, that there was a 15-day delay in lodging the FIR, there was no suicide note, and no witness supported caste-based instigation. The State raised a preliminary objection that the order rejecting discharge was an interlocutory order and thus not appealable under Section 14-A(1) of the Act, 1989. The High Court, relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Sanjay Kumar Rai v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022) 15 SCC 720, held that an order refusing discharge and framing charges is neither interlocutory nor final, and therefore the appeal was maintainable; the court then proceeded to consider the matter on merits.