-1- 2025:CGHC:22429 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 998 of 2025 Vijay Agrawal S/o Ramniwas Agrawal (Wrongly Mentioned As Late Ramniwas Agrawal) Aged About 40 Years, R/o C.R. Heights, Kharsiya Road, Ambikapur, District - Surguja (C.G.) --- Appellant (s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Incharge, Rajpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate with Mr. Goutam Khetrapal and Mr. Rudra Pratap Dubey, Advocate For State : Mr. Sanjeev Pandey, Dy. Govt. Advocate For Complainant : Ms. Seema Verma, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 29/05/2025 1. Appellant has filed this appeal under Section 14 (A) (ii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “Act of 1989”) for grant of regular Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.05.30 10:34:21 +0530 -2- bail as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.105/2025 registered at Police Station -Rajpur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 318 (4), 336 (3), 338, 340 (2), 3 (5) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3 (2) (v) of the Act of 1989. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that one consent deed was said to be executed by Jhadi and Kharidu that they will execute the lease deed in favour of Vijay Agrawal for purpose of obtaining mining lease over the said land. Subsequently, a complaint was lodged by legal representatives of Jhadi stating that consent deed is forged and fabricated document . No such document was executed by Jhadi and Kharidu. Based on the said complaint, instant crime was registered and appellant was arrested on 08.05.2025 (mentioned in order sheet as 09.05.2025). 3. Learned counsel for appellant would submit that absolutely false report has been lodged against the appellant. He has not committed any such offence as alleged. After lodging of report, complainant herself as also other legal representatives of Jhadi along with Kharidu have submitted an affidavit in which legal representatives of Jhadi have categorically stated that in the consent deed, thumb impression is of grandson of Jhadi. Appellant is not aware of fact as to the person who has put thumb impression was Jhadi or Jagarnath. It is also mentioned -3- that report has been lodged for want of correct facts and they have stated that they are having no objection in grant of bail to appellant . It is also pointed out that Kharidu, another owner of land has also submitted affidavit about the execution of consent deed and his no objection for grant of bail to appellant and has also stated that appellant is innocent. 4. Learned counsel for State opposes the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and would submit that there are sufficient allegations against the appellant of execution of forged consent deed. Hence,he is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. Though notice under Section 15 A (3) of the Act of 1989 is not issued by the Court, however, as the complainant is represented though her counsel, notice is not required to be issued to complainant. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant also submits that she is having no objection in grant of bail to appellant. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation, contents of affidavit and further submission of learned counsel for complainant that she is having no objection in grant of bail to appellant, without commenting anything on merits of the case, I am inclined to -4- allow the appeal. 9. Accordingly, appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated 14.05.2025 passed by learned learned Special Judge, SC and ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, Balrampur at Ramanujganj is set aside. It is directed that appellant shall be released on regular bail on his furnishing a personal bail bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court on the conditions that:- “(a) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (b) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (c) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the appellant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (d) The appellant shall remain present, in person, -5- before the trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial Court absence of the appellant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.” 10.Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. 11.Consequently, IA No.1, application for urgent hearing and IA No.2, application for hearing the case during summer vacation stand disposed off. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/--/--/---/-/---/-/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen