1 2025:CGHC:14168 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 611 of 2025 Ajit Gupta S/o Shri Ajay Gupta Aged About 21 Years R/o Shikari Road, Bouripara, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aditya Mishra, Advocate. For Res/State : Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, Govt. Advocate. SB : Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board 25.03.2025 1. The accused/appellant has filed this appeal under Section 14 (A) (2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “the SC/ST Act”) for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.160/2022 registered at Police Station Ambikapur, Surguja (Amibkapur), Chhattisgarh for the offence under Sections 452, 294, 506-II, 427/34 and 307/34 of the IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) of the SC/ST Act, 1989. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 27.2.2022 at about 11:00 PM, the appellants entered into the house of the complainant and started abusing the complainant and her husband in filthy languages and when the complainant's husband Sanjay Gupta objected to the same and tried to stop the appellants, then, they caused grievous injuries to him by using knife with Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI Date: 2025.03.26 10:36:38 +0530 2 an intention to kill him. On such allegations, the aforesaid offence has been registered. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant is innocent and falsely implicated. He submits that similarly situated co- accused Sujit Gupta has already been released on bail by this Court in CRA No.564/2022 on 10.05.2022. He also submits that out of 14 witnesses only 8 witnesses have been examined. He further submits that the appellant is behind the bar since 02.03.2022 and conclusion of the trial is likely to considerable time. Therefore, considering the delay in trial, the appellant may be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the allegation against the present appellant is serious in nature and he is the main accused who caused stab injuries to the victim. He also submits that earlier bail application was rejected on merits. Therefore, case of the present appellant is different from the co-accused who was enlarged on bail. He further submits that when second bail application was preferred by the appellant on the ground of delay in trial, this Court vide order dated 19.04.2024 passed in CRA No.646/2024 granted liberty to revive bail application after six months on the ground of delay in trial. He submits that this Court while hearing third bail application preferred by the appellant in CRA No.2260/2024 vide order dated 03.01.2025 took a serious note with regard to cross examination of the prime witness. The relevant portion is reproduced hereunder:- "5.Examination in chief of PW-2 Sanjay Ram was done on 21.05.2024 and on that date counsel who has accepted the brief on behalf of accused has not made his appearance for cross-examination and another 3 counsel who has conducted cross examination of the other witnesses made a prayer that original counsel is out of station for another case i.e. at Jashpur court. Taking into consideration the said prayer, learned Sessions Judge granted adjournment for cross- examination on 21.05.2024 and the witness was bound over for 23.05.2024. On such date, it is not explicit whether the said witness has turned up or not as neither any information has been recorded nor the party has drawn attention of the Court in this regard. 6. It is the duty of every stakeholder not only Judge but the Prosecutor as well that for proper administration of justice compliance of earlier orders are made. Even the learned prosecutor has not prepared the subsequent trial program including prime witness. In such circumstances, the cross- examination of the said witness has not been completed." 5. Learned State counsel submits that trial is already on progress and appreciation of evidence is not required at this juncture. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled for bail. 6. Having regard to the submission of learned counsel for the parties and considering that serious observation has been made by this Court on 03.01.2025 in CRA No.2260/2024, further considering that earlier bail application was rejected on merits and there is no material change in the circumstances of the case and further that trial is already on progress, I am not inclined to release the appellant on bail. 7. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 8. This Court hopes and trusts that the concerned trial Court shall make earnest endeavor to conclude the trial in expeditious manner. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Ajay