1 2025:CGHC:33388 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1234 of 2025 1 - Deepak Meenpal S/o Shri Vijay Meenpal Aged About 22 Years R/o Barpara Hatkeshwar Ward Dhamtari, Thana, Tahsil And District- Dhamtari (C.G.) 2 - Toran @ Ashish Meenpal S/o Shri Khoobchand Meenpal Aged About 20 Years R/o Barpara Hatkeshwar Ward Dhamtari, Thana, Tahsil and District- Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Appellants versus State of Chhattisgarh through the Station House Officer, Police Station - Dhamtari, Distt.- Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Respondent For the appellants : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate For the State : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Govt. Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 16/07/2025 1. This appeal is filed under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for grant of regular bail to the appellant as he is arrested in Crime No.66/2025 registered at P.S. Dhamtari for the offence punishable under Section 296, 115(2), 351(2), 109(1), 3(5), 117(2), 191(2), 190 of BNS 2023 and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. A ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by A ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2025.07.17 10:41:20 +0530 2 2. By impugned order dated 16.06.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (Special Act) Dhamtari in Special Sessions Case (Special Act) No. 12/2025 the application filed by the applicants for grant of regular bail has been rejected, which has been challenged in this appeal. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that complainant Sumit Sahu filed a report that on 6.03.2025 he and his friend Tumendra Lahare were at the pond near a temple located in Housing Board Colony, Hatkeshar, Dhamtari, at the same time 5-6 boys of Hatkeshar Ward, came and all of them started abusing Tumendra Lahare’s in the name of his mother and sister and they assaulted Tumendra Lahare with baseball bat and sticks and dragged him and seeing the havoc, complainant Sumeet Sahu got scared and ran away from there. Besides the applicants, other accused Yuvraj Thakur, Jitendra alias Jeetu Nishad, Ashwani Dhruv, Balram Nishad, Khilesh Meenpal, Balram Sahu alias Joga, Shrava Dhruv, Rudra Kumar, Manish Sahu and Ashwani Dhruv were also present there and they also together assaulted Tumendra Lahare with a stick , Bamboo pole and firsts, abusing him with absence words and threatening not to leave him alive. The information about the incident was given by the complainant Sumit Sahu to the Dhamtari Police Station, on the basis of which, a case was initially registered against Yuvraj Thakur, Jeetu Nishad and Manish Sahu under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 109(1), 3(5) BNS and later offence under Special Act has been added. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that neither in the FIR nor in the statement of complainant no allegations were made against the present appellants and further it is not a case where the incident took place on the ground of cast based atrocities. He submits that out of total 11 accused, one juvenile Manish and 5 other co-accused have been enlarged on bail by the trial Court whereas both the present appellants are in jail since 17.03.2025, charge sheet has been filed and there is no immediate possibility of disposal of trial, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and supports the order of the trial Court. He submits that appellant Deepak Meenpal has assaulted with base-ball bat and Toran has assaulted with lathi (Danda) and the injured Tumendra has sustained grievous injury. 3 6. The victim boy along with his father has appeared through VC from the concerned DLSA and recorded no objection to bail. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 8. Having considered the submissions made by the parties and the fact that in the FIR, the names of these two applicants have not been mentioned as assailants and out of total 11 accused, 1 juvenile and 5 other accused have already been enlarged on bail by the trial Court and these appellants are in jail since 17.03.2025 and further considering the fact the trial has not yet commenced, without further commenting upon the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to release the appellants on bail. 9. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 16.06.2025 is set aside. 10. It is directed that the appellants shall be released on bail on each of them executing a personal bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before the said Court as and when directed. Cc as per rules. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao