1 2025:CGHC:33775 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 959 of 2025 Guddu Kumar S/o Pramod Yadav Aged About 22 Years R/o Village- Dharharakala, P.S- Phatepur, Distt- Gaya (Bihar) Present Address- Gourav Path Road, Near L.I.C Office- Sitapur Distt- Surguja (C.G) ...Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer Police Station- Sitapur, Distt- Surguja (C.G.). --- Respondents For Appellant : Mr. AN Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent-State : Ms. Upasana Mehta, PL. Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 17/07/2025 1. This appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for short, 'Act of 1989') is filed against the impugned rejection order dated 30.12.2024 (Annexure A-1) passed by learned Special Judge (Atrocities Act), Ambikapur, Distt- Surguja, (CG) whereby appellants' application filed under Section 483 of BNS for grant of bail is rejected. 2. Appellant is in jail since 06.09.2024 in connection with Crime No.219/2024 registered at Police Station -Sitapur, Distt- Surguja (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 365, 323, 302, 201, 506, 212, 147, 120(B), 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act of 1989. 2 3. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 20.7.2024 complainant/Saleema Lakda lodged the written report before concerned Police Station stating that her husband Sandeep Lakda was working as ‘Mason’ (राजमिस्त्री) under the contractor Abhishek Pandey. On 07.06.2024, contractor Abhishek Pandey alongwith other co-accused persons have committed the murder of her husband and hidden his dead body to some far distant place. Based upon said complainant, FIR was registered and during investigation memorandum of the co-accused persons were recorded. On the basis of memorandum of co-accused, the Police has made accused to this appellant in the present case. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has been falsely implicated in this case, he has not committed any offence as alleged against him. The appellant was working in the office of contractor Abhishek Pandey, he has been made accused only on the basis of memorandum of co-accused persons except this there is no any evidence/material available in charge-sheet which shows that appellant has involved in any manner in the alleged crime/offence. No any incriminative articles have been seized from the possession of the present appellant and in the alleged F.I.R, there is no any allegation leveled against the present appellant. The co-accused persons namely Sabba Ansari, Jahangir Ansari and Dipanshu Maharaj have been released on regular bail by the learned trail Court concerned. Co- accused persons namely Gouri Tiwari, Shail Shakti Sahu @ Chhotu and Tuleashwar Tiwari @ Guddu have been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 10.2.2025, 28.3.2025 & 1.4.2025 in Cr. A Nо.167/2025, Cr.A no.443/2025 & Cr.A no. 434/2025, copies of said orders collectively annexed herewith as ANNEXURE A/3. There is no any other previous 3 criminal antecedent against the appellant. Appellant is in jail since 06.09.2024, charge-sheet has been filed, conclusion of trial may take time, hence, appellant may be released on bail. 5. Learned State Counsel opposing submission of counsel for the appellant and submits that there is specific evidence/material available against the appellant, hence, appellant is not entitled for grant of bail. 6. Heard counsel for respective parties. 7. Considering entire facts and circumstances of case, nature of allegation, statements of prosecution witnesses, submissions of counsel for the parties that that though the appellant was present on the spot but there is no any evidence/material available which shows that appellant was involved in the alleged crime/offence in any manner, further considering that co-accused persons have already enlarged on bail by the trial Court as well as this Court, there is no any other previous criminal antecedent against the appellant, no evidence/material is available which shows that appellant make an attempt to temper with the witnesses, detention period of appellant, I am inclined to allow this appeal. 8. Accordingly, appeal is allowed. Impugned rejection order (Annexure A-1) is set aside. It is directed that appellant shall be released on regular bail upon his furnishing a bail bond in sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court on the conditions that:- a) Appellant shall appear before trial Court regularly on each and every date, unless exempted from appearance. b) Appellant shall not, in any manner, tamper with the prosecution witnesses. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J/-