1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 838 of 2025 1 - Deva Vishwakarma S/o Manbodh Aged About 18 Years R/o Gram - Jewra, Police Station - Pathariya, District - Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 2 - Krishna Kaiwart S/o Sanjay Kaiwart Aged About 19 Years R/o Gram - Jewra, Police Station - Pathariya, District - Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station - Pathariya, District - Mungeli (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant(s) : Dr. Arpit Lall, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Deputy G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravind ra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 10/07/2025 1. The present criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 04.04.2025, passed by learned Special Judge (Atrocities Act), Mungeli, in Special VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.15 11:12:50 +0530 2 Sessions Case No. 07 of 2024, whereby the second bail application of the appellants has been rejected. 2. The appellants had filed their first bail application before the learned trial Court, which was rejected on 24.07.2024, passed in Bail Application No. 191 of 2024. They had filed CRA No. 1561 of 2024 claiming the regular bail in the offence and the said criminal appeal was decided on 09.12.2024, rejecting the bail application of the appellants. Thereafter, the appellants have filed their second bail application before the learned trial Court in the Special Sessions Case No. 07 of 2024, which has also been rejected vide order dated 04.04.2025, against which the second bail application of the appellants in the form of present criminal appeal has been filed. 3. The appellants are the accused persons, who have been arrested on 20.04.2024 in connection with Crime No. 115 of 2024, registered at P.S. Pathariya, District Mungeli, for the offence under Sections 302, 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short ‘SC/ST Act’). 4. The brief facts of the case are that, on 19.04.2024, there was a sixth day function after birth of child, which was going on in the house of one Sonal Dhruv at village Jewra, where the family members, the accused persons and the deceased were enjoying the celebration. Some altercations took place, while they were dancing and then the present appellants, along with two other juveniles in conflict with law, dragged the deceased outside of the house and assaulted him by 3 hand and fist. In between that, one of the accused, who is juvenile in conflict with law, had given a knife blow on the abdomen of the deceased, by which he received injuries and died during treatment. The merg was intimated to the police and after merg inquiry, the FIR has been registered. The appellants have been arrested on 20.04.2024 and charge sheet has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that, after rejection of the bail application of the present appellants in CRA No. 1561 of 2024, the juvenile in conflict with law has been granted bail by coordinate bench of this Court in CRR No. 1156 of 2024, vide order dated 20.01.2025. The allegation of assault is upon the said juvenile in conflict with law, who has been released on bail. The material witnesses in the present case have been examined. Till 28.11.2024, 16 witnesses have been examined, but nothing substantive come on record against the present appellants. There is every possibility of delay in trial, and therefore, the appellants may be released on bail. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would submit that, the first bail application of the appellants has been rejected on merits on 09.12.2024 and till that day, 16 witnesses have already been examined. The consideration of granting bail to the juvenile in conflict with law is entirely a different consideration with that of the consideration in the present appeal. He would further submit that from the order sheet of the learned trial Court, it appears that total 18 witnesses have been examined and only 07 witnesses 4 are remained to be examined, and the trial of the case is in advance stage. Therefore, there is no change in circumstances to grant bail to the appellants. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the appeal. 8. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, considering the nature of allegations and the material collected during the investigation, further that the first bail application in the form of criminal appeal has been rejected on merits by this Court on 09.12.2024, further that 18 witnesses have already been examined and the trial of the case is in advance stage and almost in verge of its conclusion, further also that the consideration in bail application with respect to juvenile in conflict with law is different than the bail application of the appellants, I am not inclined to admit this appeal, which is filed in the form of second bail application of the appellants. 9. Consequently, the present appeal filed by the appellants is dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved