1 2025:CGHC:35575 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1275 of 2025 Ramesh Kalo S/o Lt. Rajendra Kalo Aged About 31 Years Caste- Bhuiyan Village- Tumla, P.S. Tumla Block- Pharsabahar, District Jashpur C.G. ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Tumla, District Jashpur C.G. ... Respondent/State For Appellant : Mr. Manoj Kumar Yadav, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 23.07.2025 1. The victim has appeared through virtual mode from concerned DLSA and raised objection in granting bail to the appellant. 2. This appeal is filed under Section 14-A (2) of the SCST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for grant of regular bail to the appellant as he is arrested in connection with crime number 24/2025 registered at police station Tumla, District Jashpur (C.G.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 296, 115. 351(2), 126, 109, 3(5) of BNS and under Sections 3 (1)(m), 3 (1)(d), 3 (2)(va) of SCST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. 3. According to the prosecution's case, the complainant lodged a report at the concerned police station alleging that on May 11, 2025, near Rijhan Vishwakarma's house, the appellant along with other co-accused persons stopped him and assaulted him with hands, fists and a hammer over a monetary dispute, with the intention to kill. The assault resulted in injuries and a SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.07.24 18:41:45 +0530 2 fracture to the temporal bone. Based on this report, an offense was registered against the appellant. 4. Vide order dated 12.06.2025 passed by the Trial Court in BA/ST No.49/2025, the bail application filed by the appellant has been rejected against which the appellant has filed this appeal. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that the injuries sustained by the applicant are simple in nature. The injured was discharged from the hospital on the same day. The other co-accused persons have already been granted bail. He further submits that the appellant is in jail since 19.05.2025, charge-sheet has been filed and the trial has not commenced and is likely to take some time to be finalized, therefore, it is prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the appellant may be released on bail. 6. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the State opposes the bail application and submits that there is sufficient evidence available on record against the Appellant, therefore, at this stage, the Appellant may not be granted bail. 7. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence collected by the prosecution against the appellant and the fact that the assault has been caused through a hammer by the applicant, there was a fracture in temporal bone of the injured and the appellant is stated to be a main accused, at this stage, without further commenting on other merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that at this stage, releasing the appellant on bail would not be appropriate. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham