1 2025:CGHC:40939 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1306 of 2025 1 - Omprakash Gwalani S/o Mahesh Kumar Gwalani Aged About 32 Years R/o Street No. 03 Vivikanand Colony P.S. And Tehsil Dhamtari District - Dhamtari (C.G.) --- Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Arjuni District - Dhamtari (C.G.) --- Respondent For Appellant : Ms. Aditi Singhvi and Mr. Aditya Dhar Diwan, Advocates. For Respondent/State : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, P.L. CRA No. 1476 of 2025 1 - Ankur Agrawal S/o Pradeep Agrawal, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Mahalaxmi Green, Vivekanand Nagar, Police Station City Kotwali, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari C.G. ---Appellant Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Arjuni, District Dhamtari C.G. --- Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, P.L. SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.08.14 16:57:26 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 13/08/2025 1. These appeals u/s 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short “the SC/ST Act”) have been preferred by the appellants against the order dated 02.07.2025 passed by the Special Judge, SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Dhamtari, District – Dhamtari (C.G.), whereby the application filed by the appellant Omprakash Gwalani under Section 483 of BNSS for regular bail and the application filed by the appellant Ankur Agrawal under Section 482 of BNSS for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 88/2025 registered at Police Station Arjuni, District – Dhamtari (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 109, 190, 191(1), 296, 3(5), 351(3) of BNS and Section 3(2)(V) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act have been rejected. 2. The case of prosecution, in brief, is that, on 16.06.2025, the complainant, Lalit Netam, an operator of a chain mounting machine, lodged a report stating that he and his friends were present at a sand storage facility. About 9:30 pm, some officials, including the Tehsildar, visited the site. Later, they were asked to bring a battery for the chain mounting machine from their storage facility to another location. When they returned with the battery, some officials left after instructing them to install it. However, about 10:30 pm, Ankur Agrawal and Omprakash Gwalani @ Bittu, along with 4-5 others, arrived 3 and allegedly abused and assaulted the complainant and his friends. During the altercation, Ankur Agrawal and Omprakash Gwalani @ Bittu allegedly instigated Kuldeep to attack the complainant with a knife, resulting in injuries to the complainant's left hand, thigh, and back. The complainant was treated at a hospital and later discharged. Based on the complainant's report, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered under the aforesaid sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the SC/ST Act. 3. In CRA No. 1306/2025, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. According to the prosecution's version, it is clear that the complainant initiated the altercation. The allegations against the appellant are vague, and there is no direct evidence or specific allegation of assault or direct involvement in the stabbing incident. The appellant and his friends were merely trying to protect themselves. The applicant has a clean record, with no criminal antecedents and has been incarcerated in jail since 18.06.2025, coupled with the fact that the charge-sheet has not yet been filed, it is likely to take considerable time for the trial to conclude. Therefore, the appellant may be granted bail. 4. In CRA No. 1476/2025, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated due to business rivalry. It is alleged that a quarrel erupted between the victim, an operator of a Chain Mountain machine, and Kuldeep, a watchman, when Kuldeep restrained 4 the victim from removing a battery. The appellant arrived at the scene and was falsely implicated, without any role in the altercation or provoking Kuldeep to assault the victim. Notably, the appellant's father lodged a written complaint prior to the registration of the FIR. The injuries sustained by the victim are simple in nature. Given the circumstances, the offences under Section 351(3) and 109 of the BNS are not made out, and the ingredients of Section 3(2)(v) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, are not attracted in this case. Therefore, the appellant may be granted anticipatory bail. 5. Learned State counsel opposes the prayer made by the counsel for the appellants, submitting that the appellants are named in the FIR and the victim sustained five incised wounds, which are grievous in nature. Given the severity of the offence, the appellants are not entitled for regular and anticipatory bail. Therefore, the appeals are liable to be dismissed. 6. Vide order dated 24.07.2025, victim appeared virtually from the concerned DLSA and raised his objection in granting bail to the appellants. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 8. Considering the entirety of the case's facts and circumstances, particularly the nature and gravity of the offence, as well as the material collected and available on record against the appellants, it is evident that a named FIR has been registered against them. Since the charge-sheet has not yet been filed, 5 this Court upholds the trial court's decision and reject the regular and anticipatory bail applications. 9. Accordingly, the present appeals for grant of regular and anticipatory bail stand dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Sourabh P.