1 2025:CGHC:35963 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1382 of 2025 Manoj Nathani S/o Safarmal Nathani Aged About 54 Years R/o Sindhi Colony, Kharsia, Tahsil - Kharsia, District - Raigarh (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station - Kharsia, District - Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Aakash Aahuja, Adv. For Respondent/State : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 24/07/2025 1. The victim appeared virtually from concerned DLSA before this Court today and recorded ‘objection’ in granting bail to the appellant. 2. This second 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 303/2025 registered at police station Kharsia, District Raigarh (C.G.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 221, 121(1), 132, 3(5), 351(2), 296 of BNS and Sections 3 (1)(R)(5) of SCST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.07.26 12:43:23 +0530 2 3. First appeal of the appellant for grant of regular bail has been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 01.07.2025 passed in CRA No.1233/2025. 4. As per case of the prosecution, the complainant, Kirti Sidar, is a Police Constable posted at Police Outpost Kharsia. On the night of 03.06.2025 at around 23:30 hours, he proceeded towards the town area on patrolling duty along with his staff, during patrolling, a black vehicle came from behind at high speed and was being driven recklessly and negligently near Hanuman Chowk. The vehicle was stopped ahead for inquiry. Upon being asked, one of the occupants identified himself as Aman Nathani, resident of Kharsia. He then made a phone call and summoned three other individuals. All of them, in furtherance of common intention, began abusing the police officials and threatened him. Thereafter, they collectively started quarreling, hurled obscene abuses, and assaulted the patrolling team. Due to the assault, the complainant sustained injuries on his right arm, left thumb, right thigh, back, waist, and left hand. After the incident, all the accused fled from the spot. During the course of investigation , it was found that the accused—Aman Nathani, Mithlesh Nathani, Manoj Nathani, and Kushal Nathani, all residents of Kharsia—while patrolling was being conducted, obstructed government duty by driving recklessly and negligently. In furtherance of their common intention, they engaged in a quarrel, used obscene language, assaulted the police personnel, and caused them injuries. Based on above, offence was registered against the Appellant. 5. By order dated 02.07.2025 passed by the Trial Court in Special (Atrocitiy) Case No.17/2025, the bail application filed by the appellant has been rejected against which the appellant has filed this appeal. 6. Learned Counsels appearing for the Appellant submit that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that other co-accused who are the sons of the appellant have already been granted bail by the Trial 3 Court itself. The bail of the appellant has been rejected by the Trial Court only on the ground that he has a criminal antecedent in past. The Counsel submits that the appellant has already been acquitted in that matter. He lastly submits that the appellant is in jail since 04.06.2025 and the trial 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. 7. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the State opposes the appeal. 8. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 9. Considering the circumstances of the case and the fact that there are total 4 accused persons in this case. Three co-accused persons Aman Nathani, Mithlesh Nathani and Kaushal Nathani have already been granted bail by the Trial Court. Additionally, the Trial Court rejected the bail application solely on the ground of criminal antecedents, specifically citing Criminal Case No. 565/2013, in which the appellant has already been acquitted. Further considering the custody period of the appellant and the fact that the trial is likely to take some time to be finalized, without further commenting on other merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it would be appropriate to release the appellant on bail. 10.Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 02.07.2025 passed by the Trial Court is set-aside. 11. It is directed that the appellant shall be released on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one solvent surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the said Court as and when directed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham