1 2025:CGHC:38403 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1440 of 2025 1 - Raj Verma S/o Shri Ganpat Verma, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Vill - Pendri, P.S. Pamgarh, Distt - Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Dipak Kashyap @ Dipu S/o Late Shri Lakhanlal, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Vill - Ward No. 01, Nagar Panchayat Pamgarh, P.S. - Pamgarh, Dist - Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - S.H.O. P.S. - Pamgarh, Dist - Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For the Appellants : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate. For State/Respondent : Ms. Priya Sharma, P.L. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 04/08/2025 1. The complainant appeared before this Court today and raised his objection in granting bail to the appellants. 2. 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 appellants as they are arrested in Crime No. 175/2025 registered at P.S. Pamgarh SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.08.05 10:50:47 +0530 2 Nagar, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3), 3(5) of BNS and Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. By impugned order dated 10.07.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, Sc & ST (P.A.) Act, Janjgir, District-Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) in Criminal Case (under the Atrocities Act) No. 14/2025, the application filed by the appellants for grant of regular bail has been rejected, which has been challenged in this appeal. 4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant lodged a complaint alleging that on 28.04.2025, at about 9:45 PM, near Pamgarh Wine Shop, the appellants, along with others, were arguing with the complainant's brother- in-law, Parmeshwar Jangde. When the complainant attempted to intervene, the appellants allegedly began using abusive language against him and threatened to kill him. It is further alleged that accused Raj Verma caused injuries to the complainant with bricks, Deepak @ Dipu caused injuries with an iron bangle, and the others caused injuries with their hands and fists, resulting in injuries to the complainant's head, both legs, and right hand. Based on the complaint, FIR was registered against the appellants under Sections 296, 115, 351(3), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 3(2)(va) and 3(1)(r)(s) of 3 the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned order passed by the Special Judge is perverse, erroneous, and unsustainable in law, considering the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated. Notably, the caste certificate of the complainant was issued on 02.05.2025, after the incident. Furthermore, in the complaint there is no allegation that the appellants have used any abusive language regarding the caste of the victim/complainant. The injuries sustained by the complainant are simple in nature. The charge-sheet has been filed, and there are total 14 listed witnesses. The appellants have been in jail since 09.06.2025, and there is no immediate possibility of disposal of trial, therefore, the appellants may be enlarged on bail. 6. Per contra, the learned State Counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and supports the order of the trial court. It is submitted that there are three eyewitnesses to the incident who have supported the prosecution's case. Additionally, the bricks and iron bangle used in the commission of the offense have been seized from the respective appellants. Furthermore, appellant No. 2 has seven criminal antecedents. Given that the trial has not yet 4 commenced, it is prayed that the appellants may not be enlarged on bail at this stage. 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, particularly that the injuries sustained by the complainant are simple in nature. Although the charge-sheet has been filed, the trial has not yet commenced and the appellants are in jail since 09.06.2025, there is no immediate possibility of its disposal, therefore, without commenting on 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 10.07.2025 passed by the Trial Court is set aside. 10. It is directed that the appellants shall be released on bail on their executing a personal bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before the said Court as and when directed. 11. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Sourabh P.