1 / 5 2025:CGHC:15247 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 434 of 2025 1 - Tuleshwar Tiwari @ Guddu S/o Devi Bhagwat Tiwari Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Khadadorna Narwapara P.S. Sitapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Sitapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate For State : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. GA (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 01/04/2025 1. The instant appeal under Section 14-A (2) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 12/12/2024, passed in Bail Application No.1089/2024 by the learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Ambikapur, District Surguja, C.G., whereby the application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. of the ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.04.02 11:33:09 +0530 2 / 5 appellant has been rejected. The appellant has preferred this appeal for grant of regular bail as he is arrested in connection with Crime No.219/2024 registered in Police Station Sitapur, District Surguja, C.G. for offence punishable under sections 365, 323, 302, 201, 506, 212, 147, 120B of IPC and Sections 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. As per the prosecution case, on 20/07/2024 one Saleema Lakada lodged a written report that her husband Sandeep Lakada has been engaged as Rajmistry by the clerk of contractor Abhishek Pandey namely Gouri Tiwari for carrying out the construction work of School, where he was working. Thereafter, on 07/06/2024 in the evening at about 7-8 PM, Contractor Abhishek Pandey, Gouri Tiwari and Pratyush Pandey committed murder of her husband and have hidden the dead body to some far distant place. Thereafter, on the basis of the report, the investigation was carried out and the memorandum statement of Pratyush Pandey, Guudu Kumar, Tuleshwar Tiwari and other co-accused persons were recorded wherein it was revealed that these persons were working under the contractor namely Abhishek Pandey. The said Abhishek Pandey under suspicion that the deceased has committed theft of iron rods and cement, committed murder of the deceased in connivance with the other co-accused persons. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant used to work as a Clerk under the Contractor Abhishek Pandey and the present appellant has not beaten the deceased. He would next 3 / 5 contend that the co-accused persons namely Sabba Ansari, Jahangir Ansari and Dipanshu Maharaj got bail from trial Court and one co- accused person namely Gauri Tiwari @ Matrika Tiwari has been granted bail by this Court in CRA No.167/2025. He would next contend that the complainant/wife of the deceased has not leveled any allegation against the present appellant in the FIR. He would lastly contend that the chrage-sheet in this case has been filed and no further custodial interrogation is required, therefore, the appellant may be enlarged on bail. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail. 5. On 21/03/2025 the victim appeared through video conferencing from DLSA, Sarguja and raised objection with regard to grant of bail to the appellant. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 7. Considering the entire facts & circumstances of the case and looking to the involvement /role of the appellant in the present case that he was not involved in making assault to the deceased and further considering the fact that the co-accused persons have been enlarged on bail, there is no any other previous criminal antecedent against the appellant and also taking into consideration the fact that the charge-sheet in this case has already been filed before the trial Court and it will take time to conclude the trial, therefore, looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, I am inclined to release the 4 / 5 appellant on bail. 8. Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed and the impugned rejection order is set-aside. 9. Let the appellant herein involved in Crime No.219/2024, registered at Police Station- Sitapur, District Surguja (C.G.) for the offences as mentioned above, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/-with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions : (i) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him/her under Section 269 of BNS, 2023. (iii) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of the BNSS, 2023 is issued and the appellant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of BNS, 2023. 5 / 5 (iv) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS, 2023. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the appellant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him/her in accordance with law. 10. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu