1 2025:CGHC:22281 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 996 of 2025 Vinod Agrawal S/o Jogiram Agrawal Aged About 45 Years R/o Ram Niwas Colony, Namnakala, Police Station Gandhi Nagar, District - Surguja (C.G.) … Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Rajpur District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate For Respondent/State For Complainant/Objector : : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. Mr. Krishna Tandon, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 22.05.2025 1. Since the counsel on behalf of the complainant/objector is already present, in view of the same, this Court is of the view that the notice to the complainant is hereby dispensed with and the Court proceeds 2 to hear the matter. 2. The appellant herein has preferred this criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for setting aside order dated 13/05/2025 passed by the Special Judge SC/ST( Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Balrampur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) and for grant of anticipatory bail, as he apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No. 90/2025, registered at Police Station- Rajpur, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”) and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the appellant – Vinod Agrawal along with other co-accused persons has sold the joint property bearing khasra No. 210, 213/2, 215, 240/10, 241/1, 245 area 0.656, 0.097, 0.150, 1.259, 0.172 and 0.134 hectare situated at Tehsil Rajpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj registered in the name of complainant’s mother namely Jubaro Bai by executing a registered sale deed dated 18/11/2024 in favour of co-accused Shivaram Nagesiya for a sum of Rs. 14,00,000/- in a fraudulent manner without any consent of other co-shareholders and without obtaining the permission of the Sub-divisional Officer/Collector as complainant’s mother Jubaro Bai belongs to special backward tribe. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that complainant’s mother Smt. Jubaro Bai had executed the sale deed dated 3 18/11/2024 (Annexure A/4) in favour of co-accused Shivaram Nagesiya after receiving the consideration amount in her bank account and she had sold her share after obtaining the consent letter from other co-shareholders and there is no fraud in the said transaction. He also submits that since both the seller i.e. Smt. Jubaro Bai and the purchaser i.e. co-accused Shivaram Nagesiya belonged to Scheduled Tribe community, permission under Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code is not required and no offence is made out against the present appellants. He also submits that co- accused Yashwant Kumar has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in MCRC(A) No. 656/2025 vide order dated 07/05/2025, therefore, the present criminal appeals be allowed. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the complainant/objector oppose the criminal appeal of the appellant and submit that the present appellant has 9 criminal antecedents under the BNS and Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) out of which, 3 cases are still pending against him which shows that the appellant is a habitual offender, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail in the present matter. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and from perusal of the case diary, it transpires that the present appellant has 9 criminal antecedents under the BNS and IPC out of which, 3 cases are still pending against him which shows that the appellant is 4 a habitual offender, therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the appellant is not entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 8. Accordingly, the criminal appeal filed by the appellant – Vinod Agrawal, under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for setting aside order dated 13/05/2025 passed by the Special Judge SC/ST( Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Balrampur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) and for grant of anticipatory bail, as he apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No. 90/2025, registered at Police Station- Rajpur, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is hereby rejected. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned on necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Harneet