2025:CGHC:7363 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1679 of 2024 Judgement Reserved on 22.01.2025 Judgement delievered on 10.02.2025 1. Vijay Rathore S/o Ramesh Rathore Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Silyari Ward No.12 Bajrangpara Chowki Silyari Police Station Dharsinva District - Raipur (C.G.). 2. Rohit Solanki S/o Balchand Solanki Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Silyari Ward No. 12 Bajrangpara Chowki Silyari Police Station - Dharsinwa District - Raipur (C.G.). 3. Amit Solanki S/o Puran Solanki Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Silyari Ward No. 12 Bajrangpara Chowki Silyari Police Station - Dharsinwa District - Raipur (C.G.) 4. Hari Rathore S/o Late Mohan Lal Rathore Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Silyari Choki - Silyari Police Station - Dharsinwa District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer Police Station - Dharsinwa District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellants : Mrs. Fouzia Mirza, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ali Afzaal Mirza, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Abhishek Singh, Panel Lawyer For Respondent/Objector: Mr. Anish Tiwari, Advocate -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.02.10 18:09:17 +0530 Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas CAV Judgment 1. The appellants have preferred this appeal under Section 14 A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act, 1989') for grant of bail under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 615/2023, registered at Police Station Dharsinwa, District Raipur (CG), for the offence under Sections 147,148,149,325,307 of the IPC, 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3(2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that on the date of incident i.e. 27.12.2023 at about 9.30 PM, complainant Murli Manohar Markam who is the director of School known as Gyan Watika, informed the police that his son Kripesh Markam took his dog outside of his house near Sarswati Shishu Mandir Taresar Road, Silyari, at the same time, Appellant Puran Solanki along with other co-accused have reached there armed with rod, lathi and danda and assaulted him on account of old enmity. Upon receiving the information on mobile, he alongwith his brother Santosh and son Chandan reached the spot where they saw that the accused with common intention surrounded his son Kripesh, threatened to kill and started assaulting him with lathi, danda, knife and rod, as a result of which, he sustained injuries on his eyes, leg and rib. His brother Santosh intervened in the scufÒe on account of which he also sustained injuries on the leg and hand. The complainant also received injury on his forehead and his another son Chandan too sustained injuries on his body. The victims were admitted at Community Health Centre Dharsiva thereafter Dr. referred them to DKS Hospital Raipur for further treatment. After the incident, information was sent to Police Station- Dharsiva on the basis of which unnumbered Dehati Nalsi No. 0/23 was registered at the instance of Sub Inspector Baleshwar Lahare thereafter, Crime No. 615 of 2023 was registered against the applicants under Section 147, 148 and 307 of the IPC. 3. Learned Sr. Advocate for the appellants would submit that neither the appellants were involved in the commission of offence nor they actively participated in it. She would further submit that from perusal of the evidence of Doctor PW-2, no offence under Section 307 IPC would be attracted against them and the appellants are falsely implicated in the case. He would further submit that as a counter blast, a report was lodged against the applicants. She further submit that the prosecution did not disclose that the injuries caused to the complainants are grievous in nature. Learned Sr. counsel for the appellants would further submit that the appellants are in jail for more than one year and there is no progress in the trial. She would further submit without proper referral of government doctor, they themselves went to private hospital for treatment which is evident from the statement of Dr. Sanjeev Khunte and the victims were admitted in the hospital only 2 to 3 days thereafter they have been discharged. Learned Sr. counsel for the appellants would further submit that Sagar Solanki had previously lodged the complaint against the appellants with regard to hurling obscene abuses and committed marpit with them which was registered under Crime No. 554 of 2023 under Section 294, 323, 506 of the IPC and would pray for releasing the appellants on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the objector would submit that the appellants have played active participation in the alleged offence and on earlier occasion. He would further submit that counsel for the appellants has withdrawn the earlier bail application with liberty to file a fresh if exigency so arises on 02.07.2024 in CRR No. 584 of 2024 but there is no changed circumstances for reviving the same in short time, therefore, on this ground alone the application deserves to be rejected. He would further submit that on account of old enmity the appellants along with the co- accused with common intention called the son of the complainant, caused knife injuries on the forehead of Murli Manohar Markam which is grievous in nature. The weapon of assault i.e. knife has been seized from the possession of the appellants on the memorandum of other co-accused which shows involvement of the appellants in the offence. He would further submit that the appellants are habitual criminal offender of the area and if the bail is granted to them then there is chance of tampering of the evidence and influencing the witnesses. He would further submit that independent witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and for further treatment, the doctor referred to Higher Hospital at Raipur. He would further submit that one of the co-accused was released on parole for few days thereafter, he made post of threat on facebook to take revenge with the complainants. He would further submit that there are total 33 witnesses out of which 20 witnesses have already been examined and all the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution which shows involvement of the appellants in commission of offence. He would further submit that the delay in trial is always not a ground for releasing the appellants on bail and the gravity of the offence has to be considered, therefore, he would pray for rejection of the appeal. 5. On the other hand learned State Counsel appearing for the respondent/State opposes the bail application and would submit that the appellants have past criminal antecedents and habitual offender of the local area, they were indulged in organized crime of similar nature. One case is registered against Appellant Rohit Solanki. Five cases were registered against Amit Solanki in Police Station Dharsiva. He would further submit that Dr. S. R. Baghel examined the victim at Community Health Centre Dharsiva where he noticed incised wound in the size of 2x1x1 Cm on the right leg, incised wound in the size of 2X1 cm on the left leg on the body of victim Kapish Markar. Incised wound in the size of 2x1x1cm on the right leg, incised wound in the size of 2x1 on the forehead and lacerated wound in the size of 1x1 cum of victim Murli Manohar Markam. He examined victim Santosh Markam and noticed swelling on the left shoulder and he was complaining pain on his body. He referred the victims to DKS Hospital Raipur for further treatment as he noticed fractures on different parts of the victims. He would further submit that the appellants have played active role in the commission of offence and looking to the gravity of the offence, and the manner in which the offence has been committed by appellants, they do not deserve to be released on bail, thus he would pray for rejection of the bail application. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the statements of the witnesses recorded before the Court, further considering the gravity and the manner in which the injuries were caused to the victims, further considering the fact that the trial is in progressive stage as most of the witnesses have already been examined before the trial Court, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the appellants. 8. Accordingly, the appeal of the appellants is rejected. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Santosh