1 2025:CGHC:35244 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1182 of 2025 1 - Ayaj Ahmad S/o Shri Abdul Kadir Aged About 24 Years R/o Nawapara, Church Road Ambikapur Police Station Gandhinagar Tahsil Ambikapur District - Sarguja (C.G.) (As Per Challan ) 2 - Guljar Ahmad S/o Shri Abdul Kadir Aged About 35 Years R/o Nawapara, Church Road Ambikapur Police Station Gandhinagar Tahsil Ambikapur District - Sarguja (C.G.) (As Per Challan) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Outpost Raghunathpur Police Station Lundra District - Sarguja (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Keshav Gupta, Govt. Advocate For Complainant : Mr. Vivek Kumar Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravind ra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 22/07/2025 1. Pursuant to the order dated 24.06.2025, the complainant Sukhdev Nagesh appeared in person before this Court and submitted that he has no objection in granting bail to the applicant. He is also VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.08.04 16:13:51 +0530 2 represented by his counsel, who also identified the complainant and submitted that they have no objection in the bail application of the applicant, which has been filed in the form of present appeal. 2. The present criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short ‘SC/ST Act’) against the impugned order dated 11.06.2025, passed by learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Surguja (Ambikapur), in Special Sessions Case (Atrocities) No. 17 of 2025, whereby the regular bail application of the appellants filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been rejected. 3. The appellants had filed their first bail application before the learned trial Court, which was rejected on 11.06.2025, passed in Special Sessions Case (Atrocities) No. 17 of 2025. Earlier, the appellants had filed their bail application in MCRC No. 3701 of 2025, which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to avail the remedy of filing appeal under Section 14-A of the SC/ST Act vide order dated 05.06.2025, thereafter the present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants. 4. The appellants are the accused persons, who have been arrested on 03.04.2025, in connection with Crime No. 71 of 2025, registered at Lundra, Outpost Raghunathpur, District Surguja, for the offence under Sections 109(1) 296, 351(2), 115(2), 324(2), 3(5) of Bharatiya 3 Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r) and (s), 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(v- a) of the SC/ST Act. 5. The brief facts of the case are that, on 02.04.2025, at about 2:00 PM, the complainant, on being information received by the Patwari, had gone to his field at the time of demarcation of the land of the accused persons. After the demarcation, some part of the appellants’ land overcomes on the side of the complainant’s land and then altercation took place between the parties, and then the appellant Ayaj Ahmad assaulted the injured Vikas Yadav by stone, which inflicted him on his head and by hurling abuses and threats, the accused persons went away by their car. After a short movement, when the injured Vikas Yadav and Shastra Yadav talking to each other, the accused persons again came there by their car and tried to crush the injured and Shastra Yadav, however, they could save themselves and by dashing their Scooty, the accused persons fled away by their case. the appellant Ayaj Ahmad was driving the car at that time. When the injured and witness going to police station for lodging of the report, the appellants along with his friends Shoeb Akhtar and Rehan Khan stopped them on the way and the appellant Ayaj Ahmad assaulted the complainant Rakesh Yadav by knife near his ear and Guljar Ahmed assaulted him by danda, which also inflicted on his head. The FIR was registered against the accused persons. The complainant was sent for his medical examination. In which, the injuries found on the body of the complainant Rakesh Yadav was opined that it was severe in nature and he referred for NCCT of head, and the injured 4 Sukhdev Nagesh was also received multiple swelling in head region by the assaults made by the accused persons, and he also referred for NCCT of head. After the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the 04 accused persons, including the present appellants. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that, the complainant himself was aggressor and he came on the spot, when the present appellants getting their land demarcated by the Patwari. It is only when the measurement of the land was done and some part of their land comes under the encroachment by the complainant. The complainant party raised quarrel on the ground that on earlier occasion, there was no encroachment and now the encroachment has been reported. There are no intentionally insults or intimidates the complainant on the ground and knowing that they belong to SC/ST community. The allegation of attempt to commit murder by crushing by their car is only an afterthought allegation to make the offence more severe. In the altercation, simple injuries received by the complainant party. The accused persons namely Shoeb Akhtar and Rehan Khan have been released on bail by the learned trial Court have been released on bail. the appellants are in jail since 03.04.2025. The parties have entered into compromise as they are neighbourers and settled their dispute. Final adjudication of the case will take its own time; therefore, the appeal may be allowed and the appellants may be released on bail. 5 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose and submit that, there are sufficient evidence against the appellants in the case that they attempted to commit murder the complainant by crushing him by the vehicle, and when the complainant and his companion going to police station for lodging of the report, they were assaulted by knife and danda, which clearly shows their intention to commit the offence. The complainant has received injuries on their head, which is vital part of the body. The manner in which the offence has been committed by the accused persons and intentionally insulted and intimidates the complainant, who belongs to the scheduled tribe community, the appellants are not entitled for bail. He would also submit that the offence of Section 109(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the offences under the SC/ST Act are not compoundable, and therefore, the benefit of compromise cannot be extended to the appellants. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 9. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, considering the nature of allegations and the material collected during the investigation, the injury report of the injured persons, the circumstances under which the incident took place, mutual relation with the parties as they are the neighbours and the incident occurred at the time of demarcation of their lands, the affidavit submitted by the complainant Sukhdev Nagesh that he 6 settled his dispute with the accused persons and has no objection in granting bail to the appellants, the appellants are in jail since 03.04.2025, the other two accused persons Shoeb Akhtar and Rehan Khan have been released on bail by the learned trial Court, and considering the possibility of delay in conclusion of trial of the case, without commenting anything on merits of the case, I am inclined to release the appellants on bail. 10. Consequently, the present appeal filed by the appellants is allowed and the impugned order dated 11.06.2025 is set-aside. The appellants are directed to be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court. The appellants shall also abide by the following conditions:- (i) The appellants 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 them from disclosing such fact to the Court. (ii) The appellants shall not act, in any manner, which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, and (iii) The appellants shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial unless their personal presence is exempted by the trial Court. 7 11. It is made clear that any observation made in this order is restricted only for consideration of the present appeal. The learned trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits without being influenced by any observation made in this order. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved