1 2025:CGHC:15332 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 510 of 2025 1 - Om Thakur S/o Shri Dilip Thakur Aged About 23 Years R/o Vrinda Nagar, Near Johan Dukan, Police Station Padmnabhpur, Durg, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Padmnabhpur, Durg, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Anmol Sharma, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 01/04/2025 This appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as “Special Act”) has been filed against the order dated 14.02.2025 passed by the Special Judge Durg (CG) in connection with Crime No. 308/2024 registered at police station Padmnabhpur, District Durg (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1),3(5),61(2),191 (2), 191(3) 2 and 238 of BNS, 2023; Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and 3 (2)(v) and 3(1)s of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 13.08.2024, complainant filed a written complaint before the police authorities alleging that on 12.08.2024, at about 11.10 pm his nephew namely Shubham Bande was assaulted by Ravi Yadav and other co-accused persons with knife and other incriminating articles near Government School Borsi Bhanta as a result of which Shubham sustained grievous injuries on his stomach, head and back. He was immediately taken to hospital where the doctors declared him dead. FIR was lodged against Ravi Yadav by name and others on 13.08.2024 under Section 103(1) and 3(5) of the BNS 2023. Accused Ravi Yadav was arrested and on his memorandum statement, co-accused persons namely Sahil Yadav, Ritendra Yadav, Murali Yadav, Harish Mugari, Aman Bhatt, Dinesh Yadav, Om Prakash Dewangan, Komesh Sahu, Vedprakash Sahu and the present applicant were arrested. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that name of the appellant has not been mentioned in the FIR. He submits that only on the basis of the memorandum statement of the main accused Ravi Yadav, he has been arrested. He further submits that nothing has been seized from the present appellant. Lastly, he submits that the charge sheet has been filed, the appellant is in jail since 13.08.2024 and the trial will take sometime to conclude, therefore he would pray for grant of bail to the appellant. 4. On the other hand, counsel for the State opposes the bail application. 3 5. Complainant appeared through video conferencing from the concerned DLSA and has raised objection. 6. Heard counsel for the parties and considering the fact that in the FIR there is no mention of the name of the appellant in commission of the offence. It is pertinent to mention that the statement of Vedram Bande, complainant has been recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in which the name of the appellant is not mentioned in the commission of the offence and only on the basis of memorandum statement of the main accused Ravi Yadav, name of the appellant is mentioned. Thus, looking to the involvement/role of the appellant in committing the offence and looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the charge sheet has been filed before the trial court on 14.08.2024 and there is no need of custodial interrogation and there is no previous antecedents shown by the prosecution and also that the prosecution has not shown the appellant trying to tamper the witnesses, therefore this Court is of the considered opinion that present is a fit case to grant bail to the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. 7. It is directed that in the event of the appellant executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one local surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial court, he shall be released on bail subject to the following conditions: i) That the appellant shall furnish a specific undertaking that while on bail, he will not commit any such offence, otherwise bail granted to him shall be liable to be cancelled and shall co-operate the prosecution during trial. ii) that the accused/appellant shall not, directly or 4 indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. iii) That the accused/appellant shall not act, in any manner, which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.04.04 17:34:10 +0530