1 2025:CGHC:35623 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1381 of 2025 1 - Ved Prakash Sahu S/o Namdas Sahu Aged About 19 Years R/o Azad Chowk Borsi, Police Station Padmnabhpur, Tahsil And District - Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer Police Station Padmnabhpur / Ajaks, District - Durg (C.G.) ----Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Adv. For State : Ms. Upasana Mehta, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Judgment on Board 23.07.2025 1. This criminal appeal filed under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for short, 'Act of 1989') against order dated 24.06.2025 passed by learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Durg District Durg (CG) whereby an application filed by the appellant under Section 483 of Bharatiay Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been dismissed. 2. The appellant has been arrested on 13.08.2024 with Crime No. 308/2024 registered at Police Station –Padmnabhpur/AJAKS, 2 District Durg (CG), for the offence punishable under Sections 191(3)/190/61(2), 103(1)/190 and Sections 3(2)(v) & 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 13.08.2024, the complainant filed a written complaint before the police authorities alleging that on 12.08.2024, at about 11:00 pm his nephew namely Shubham Bande was assaulted by accused persons with knife and other incriminating articles near Government School Borsi Bhanta as a result of which Shubham sustained grievous injuries on his stomach, head and back. He was immediately taken to hospital where the doctors declared him dead. FIR was lodged against Ravi Yadav by name and others on 13.08.2024 under Section 103(1) and 3 (5) of the BNS 2023. Accused Ravi Yadav was arrested and on his memorandum statement, co- accused persons namely Sahil Yadav, Ritendra Yadav, Murali Yadav, Harish Mugari, Aman Bhatt, Dinesh Yadav, Om Prakash Dewangan, Komesh Sahu, Vedprackash Sahu (present appellant) and the present appellant and other accused persons were arrested.. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the name of the appellant has not been mentioned in the FIR. He submits that only on the basis of the memorandum statement of the main accused Ravi Yadav, he has been arrested. He further submits 3 that nothing has been seized from the present appellant. The other accused namely Om Thakur has been granted bail vide order dated 01.04.2025 in CRA No. 510/2025. Lastly, he submits that the charge sheet has been filed, the appellant is in jail since 13.08.2024 and the trial will take sometime to conclude, therefore he would pray for grant of bail to the appellant. 5. Learned State Counsel opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for appellant. 6. Today, the complaint appeared through DLSA Durg and raised objection in grant of bail to the appellant. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. On perusal of facts, it reflects that in the FIR there is no mention of the name of the appellant in commission of the offence and nothing has been recovered from the present appellant. Only on the basis of memorandum statement of the main accused Ravi Yadav, name of the appellant is mentioned. Further, the co- accused Om Thakur has already been granted bail by this Court. 9. Looking to the involvement/role of the appellant in committing the offence and looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the charge sheet has been filed before the trial Court on 14.08.2024 and there is no need of custodial interrogation and there is no previous antecedents shown by the prosecution and also the prosecution has not shown the appellant trying to tamper the witnesses, therefore this 4 Court is of the considered opinion that present is a fit case to grant of bail to the appellant. 10. Accordingly, appeal is allowed. Impugned rejection order 24.06.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Durg District Durg (Annexure A-1) is set aside. It is directed that in the event of arrest by the Police Officer appellants shall be released on bail upon his furnishing a bail bond in sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Arresting officer on the following conditions that:- a) Appellant shall appear before trial Court regularly on each and every date, unless exempted from appearance. b) Appellant shall not, in any manner, tamper with the prosecution witnesses. c) Appellant shall in any manner will not threaten the complainant of the case. d) Appellant will give his full co-operation whenever the Police Officer will ask him to come for inquiry. e) Appellant in any manner will take full participation in resolving the case and will not ask for unnecessary adjournment. 11. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti