1 2025:CGHC:35625 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1150 of 2025 Virendra Rajak S/o Late Babulal Rajak Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Beeja, Takhatpur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Matin Siddiqui, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Upasna Mehta, Dy.GA (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 23/07/2025 This appeal under Section 14(A) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as “Special Act”) has been filed against the order dated 04.03.2025 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Bilaspur in connection with Crime No. 269/2024 registered at police station Takhatpur, district Bilaspur (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 2 294,307,323,506 read with Section 34 and Section 3 (2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 30.05.2024, FIR was lodged by the complaint alleging that at about 9.45 am, when they went to their fields, the appellants were ploughing the field and on being asked by them, the appellant who is the Kowar of the village and the co-accused started quarelling with them. It is alleged that the son of the appellant who was driving the tractor, ran over the victim and caused grievous injuries. On the basis of the said complaint, police has registered the case against the appellant for the offences as mentioned above. 3. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant and the family of the victim are having land dispute and on the date of incident, the family of the appellant was ploughing the filed to yield some crop and at that point of time, the complainants came over there and the quarrel started. He submits that the appellant was not having any intention to cause injury to the victim. It is submitted that in the present case charge sheet has been filed, he is in jail since 31.05.2025 and that 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. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further considering the allegations made in the FIR and looking to the nature of 3 injuries sustained by the victim and that charges have ben framed, some of the material witnesses are examined, I am not inclined to allow this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby rejected. However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial as early as possible. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge