1 2025:CGHC:18213 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 608 of 2025 Shesh Narayan Pandey S/o Shri Motiram Pandey Aged About 72 Years Old R/o Gevra Ghat Atal Awas No. 31, Op Cseb Korba Police Station Kotwali Korba District -Korba (C.G. ) ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Kotwali Korba District - Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Ms. Nupur Trivedi, Advocate. For Respondent-State: Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Order on Board 22.04.2025 1. Complainant has not appeared before this court, although the notice was served, hence Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, Advocate is appointed as Amicus Curaie to assist the court on behalf of the complainant. 2. This appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for short, 'Act of 1989') is filed against the order dated 06.02.2025 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh in Special Case (SC/ST) no. 31 of 2020 (Annexure A/1). 3. Appellant is alleged to be an accused in connection with Crime No.753 of 2020 registered at Police Station – Kotwali, Korba, District-Korba, Chhattisgarh, for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 4. The case in nutshell is such that the complainant is the husband of deceased victim named Gairi Bai and it has been alleged that on 2 05.09.2020 the complainant heard a sound of screaming and when he went out of his house he saw that the applicant was assaulting Uma Devi with a knife due to which Uma Devi fell on the ground and thereafter the applicant ran behind the complainant and his wife before they could have enter their house to save themselves the applicant assaulted Gauri Bai with knife due to which she received grievous injuries and while taking her to the hospital she succumbed to death. On the basis of the allegation made by the complainant FIR was lodged and the applicant was arrested. 5. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and is falsely implicated in the present case. He is in jail since 05.09.2020 and he has been arrested only on the basis of the complainant statement and there is no further solid evidence which could prove that the offence has been committed by the appellant. She also contended that the appellant is a 72 year old man and is suffering from various health issued due to his old age. Prolonged incarceration could exacerbate any existing medical conditions, and adequate medical care may not be available in prison, hence he may be enlarged on bail in the interest of justice. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellant. 7. Heard counsel for respective parties, perused the record with utmost circumspection. 8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations, particularly to the fact that there are seven eye witnesses and it is a broad day light murder. Also one of the witness was injured in the incident. The case is under trial, only the examination of the Investigation Officer is left. This court is of the considered opinion that the present 3 case is not a fit case to allow the bail of the appellant. 9. Accordingly, appeal is rejected. 10. However, concerned trial court is directed to expedite the trial preferably within a period of six months from today ,if no legal impediment. sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge alfiza