1 2025:CGHC:17286 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 600 of 2025 1 - Sajan Vishavkarma S/o Teju Ram Vishavkarma Aged About 25 Years Sakin- Puhputra, Ward No. 20, P.S.- Lakhanpur, District- Surguja (C.G.) ... appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Lakhanpur, District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For appellant : Mr. Navneet Kumar Yadav, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. Govt. Advocate S.B. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on board 15.04.2025. 1. The present is a criminal appeal under Section 14 (A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 filed by the appellant against the impugned order dated 19.12.2024 passed by learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Ambikapur in the matter of State of C.G. Vs. Sajan Vishavkarma, whereby the application filed by the appellant under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. for grant of regular bail is rejected in connection with Crime No. 218/2024, registered at Police Station- Lakhanpur, Dist- Surguja (CG). 2 2. Pursuant to the order dated 25.03.2025, the complainant has appeared through virtual mode from DLSA Surguja and raised objection in granting bail to the appellant. His submission is taken on record. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 05/09/2024, the complainant lodged a written complaint to the Police that on 29/08/2024 at about 11.12 in the night, the appellant entered into the house by broke open its door and treatened him with dire consequences. When he started running from his house, he threw the Axe by which he received injuries on his neck. Due to fear, he could not lodged the report immediately. The FIR has been registered against the appellant for the offence under Section 331(6), 296, 351 (3) and 118 (1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (in short BNS) and the appellant has been arrested on 12.11.2024. From the appellant, an axe has been seized and after investigation, charge-sheet has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there was the land dispute between the appellant and the complainant, the report has been lodged after about six days of the alleged incident and there is no explanation of delay in lodging the FIR, in the MLC report only simple injuries have been found on the shoulder of the complainant which was caused within 24 hours of his examination whereas the alleged incident is occurred, six days prior to the examination of the complainant. Initially there was no FIR under the offences of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and only to make offences more severe, the offences of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act have been added. The appellant is in jail since 12.11.2024 and final adjudication of the case will take its own time, therefore the appellant may be released on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and have submitted that from the statement of the complainant and other witnesses, who seen the incident causing injuries to the complainant in the night when the appellant was in his house. The injuries found on the body of the complainant which is on the vital part of his body and therefore the appellant is not entitled for bail. 3 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, considering the nature of allegation and material collected during the investigation, further considering the statement of the complainant as well as his injury report, the appellant is in jail since 12.11.2024 and final adjudication of the case will take its own time and also that there is no allegation of abuse in the name of his caste, I am inclined to release the applicant on bail. 8. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 19.12.2024 is set aside. 9. It is directed that the applicant Sajan Vishavkarma shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, on following conditions:- (i) He Shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court. (ii) He shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (iii) He shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the concerned trial Court till disposal of the trial. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Sagrika SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.04.17 10:54:11 +0530