1 2025:CGHC:24001 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 880 of 2025 1 - Sohail Khan Alias Sujju S/o Eid Mohammad Aged About 20 Years R/o Bazarpara, Ward No. 4 Sakti, District- Sakti, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Sakti, District- Sakti (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Mayank Mulchandani and Shri Praveen Sharma,Advocates For Respondent/State :Shri Satish Gupta, GA. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Judgment on Board 13/06/2025 This appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as “Special Act”) has been filed against the order dated 02.04.2025 passed by the Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989, District Sakti in connection with Special Criminal Case No. 03/2025 registered at police station Sakti, District Sakti (CG) for the offence 2 punishable under Sections 302, 323, 506 (2) and 34 IPC of BNS and Section 3 (2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 26.12.2023 at about 1.00 pm, complainant Ramji and deceased Raju Lal @ Roshan were sitting near the water tank at Budhwari Bazar, Sakti at that point of time, acused Rahul Yadav, Sohail Khan @ Sajju and Manav Sidar came and demanded for Chilam from Ramji. When he refused to give, appellant and the co-accused persons abused them and assaulted with hands and fists as a result of which Rajulal @ Roshan sustained grievous injures and died. Report was lodged by complainant Ramji and Crime No. 404/2023 was registered against the appellant and co-accused for the offence punishable under Sections 294,506,323 and 34 IPC. During treatment Rajulal @ Roshan succumbed to the injuries and thereafter Section 302 IPC and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act were added. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He further submits that the prosecution witnesses have not supported the case of proecution and turned hostile. He submits that the charge sheet has been filed, the appellant is in jail since 29.12.2023 and the trial will take sometime to conclude, therefore he would pray for grant of bail to the appellant. 4. On the other hand, counsel for the State opposes the bail application. 5. The complainant/father of the deceased was present before the Court and has raised objection. 3 6. Heard counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the prosecution witnesses have turned hostile and further looking to the fact that the charge sheet has been filed and the appellant is in jail since 29.12.2023, this Court is of the considered opinion that present is a fit case to grant bail to the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. 7. It is directed that in the event of the appellant executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one local surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial court, he shall be released on bail subject to the following conditions: i) That the appellant shall furnish a specific undertaking that while on bail, he will not commit any such offence, otherwise bail granted to him shall be liable to be cancelled and shall co-operate the prosecution during trial. ii) that the accused/appellant 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. iii) That the accused/appellant shall not act, in any manner, which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.06.17 11:14:50 +0530