1 2025:CGHC:23873 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 780 of 2025 1 - Mayank Sharma S/o Ramchandra @ Prafull Sharma, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Dabripara, Akaltari, P.S. Ratanpur, Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Sho, P.S. Ratanpur Distt. - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Vivek Sharma, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 13/06/2025 1. This appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short “the SC/ST Act”) has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 01.04.2025 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Bilaspur (C.G.) in Special Sessions Case No.06/2025 whereby the bail application SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.06.17 11:30:42 +0530 2 filed by the appellant under Section 483 of BNSS in connection with Crime No.47/2025 registered at Police Station Ratanpur, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 296, 109, 3(5) of BNS and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act has been rejected. 2. As per the prosecution case, on 18.01.2025 at about 09:00 am, the complainant Arvind Tilakraj was at his home when his uncle, the injured Rampal Tilakraj, arrived on his bicycle in a blood-soaked condition and called out to him. Upon inquiry, uncle informed the complainant that earlier that day, he had gone to the Bahra Khar Village to catch fish, where a dispute over unathorized occupation of government land escalated into a violent altercation with Ramchandra @ Prafull Sharma and his son Mayank Sharma (the accused). The injured uncle alleged that Ramchandra @ Prafull Sharma had attacked him with a tangia, striking his head multiple times and when he tried to defend himself, he sustained injuries to his right hand and left shoulder and felt unconscious, then both the accused left the place. On report being lodged by the complainant, offence under the aforesaid sections has been registered against the appellant. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in 3 the case. He submits that there was a civil dispute between both the parties, therefore, he may be falsely implicated in the present case. He next submits that the appellant has been arrested on the basis of memorandum whereas no incriminating material has been recovered from his possession. He further submits that the appellant is in jail since 19.01.2025 and he has no criminal antecedents and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its completion, therefore, the appellant may be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the said prayer and submits that at the time of incident, the appellant had restrained/hold the victim and there is sufficient evidence available on record against the Appellant and now, the trial has not been commenced, therefore, the Appellant may not be granted bail. 5. The victim namely Rampal Tilakraj appeared through Video Conferencing and raised his objection to the bail application. 6. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. 7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case particularly the nature and gravity of offence and the material collected and available on record against the 4 appellant and also considering the fact that now the trial has not been commenced, therefore, at this stage, I do not find it appropriate to release the appellant on bail. 8. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Sourabh P.