1 2025:CGHC:50377 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1465 of 2025 1 - Aryan Vishwakarma @ Goldi S/o Sanjay Vishwakarma Aged About 20 Years R/o Purana Bazaarpara Surajpur, Police Station And Tehsil Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station Surajpur, Dist.- Surajpur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Ms. Anshu Ratre, Advocate For State : Ms. Upasana Mehta, Dy. Government Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.10.10 16:39:32 +0530 2 09/10/2025 1. Complainant/victim Ghanshyam Sonwani, who is a Police Constable, appeared through video conferencing and on being asked, he raised objection against grant of bail to the appellant. 2. This is first application for grant of bail to the appellant. 3. This appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act of 1989’) is filed against the impugned order dated 9.7.2025 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Surajpur in Bail Petition No.428 of 2025, whereby the appellant’s application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of bail has been rejected. 4. The appellant is in jail since 16.10.2024 in connection with Crime No.573 of 2024 registered at Police Station Surajpur, District Surajpur (Chhattisgarh) for the offences punishable under Sections 296B, 351(3), 221, 132, 118(2), 121(2), 109(2) BNSS and Sections 3(1)(R-S), 3(2)(v) of the Act of 1989. 5. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 13.10.2024 Constable Ghanshyam Sonwani lodged a complaint at Police 3 Station Surajpur regarding an alleged incident that occurred at around 9:00 p.m. during the Durga Visarjan Programme near Agrasen Chowk, Old Bus Stand, Surajpur. As per the First Information Report, only Kuldeep Sahu allegedly abused and threatened the complainant/victim and poured boiling oil on him from a pan at a biryani shop and fled from the spot. The victim/complainant sustained severe burns on his head, face, neck, chest and hands. Charge sheet has been filed and the appellant is in jail since 16.10.2024. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. He has not committed any offence as alleged against him. She further submits that the material witnesses have been examined and there are various omissions and contradictions in their statements and they have not stated anything against the present appellant. She also submits that though the complainant/victim, who is a Police Constable, was aware of the name of the appellant, but he did not mention his name in his complaint (FIR). The Appellant is in jail since 16.10.2024, conclusion of the trial may take time and, therefore, the appellant may be released on bail. 4 7. Learned counsel for the State opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the order passed by the Trial Court is just and proper and does not require any interference. 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available minutely. 9. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, statement of the complainant/victim, submission of learned counsel for the appellant that in the FIR, name of the appellant has not been mentioned and looking to the period of detention of the appellant, I am inclined to allow this appeal. 10. Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 9.7.2025 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Surajpur in Bail Petition No.428 of 2025 is set aside. 11. It is directed that the appellant shall be released on regular bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000 (Ten Thousand) with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court on following conditions that: 5 (i) The appellant shall appear before the Trial Court regularly on each and every date unless exempted from appearance. (ii) The Appellant shall not, in any manner, tamper with the prosecution witnesses. C.C. as per rules. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Gopal