1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1638 of 2025 1 - Hemant Kumar Yadav S/o Hiraram Yadav Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Kauhakuda, Police Outpost Sonakhan, Police Station Kasdol, District Balodabazar (Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Kasdol, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Pandey, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 16/09/2025 1. Pursuant to the order dated 13.08.2025, the complainant/ victim appeared through virtual mode before this Court from DLSA- Balodabazar and raised objection in granting bail to the appellant. Their objection is taken on record. SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.09.17 11:44:51 +0530 2 2. This is the appeal filed by the appellant against the order dated 30.07.2025 passed by learned Special Judge (Atrocities) Balodabazar in Special Case STSC/ 1/ 2025, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected. 3. Earlier the appellant has filed his bail application in Criminal Appeal No. 578/2025 before this Court which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 11.04.2025, thereafter the appellant had filed the second bail application before the learned trial Court which was rejected on 30.07.2025 against which the present bail application in form of the criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)Act, 1989. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the injured/ victim has been examined as PW/1 and there are material discrepancies in his evidence and the main accused is the co-accused Shiv Shankar Yadav. The present appellant is trying to intervene in the quarrel between injured and Shiv Shankar Yadav and tried to separate them and it is only on suspicion, he has also been involved in the offence. The appellant is in jail since 29.12.2024, total 09 witnesses have been examined, however, there is no sufficient material and evidence against the appellant and therefore, he may be released on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and would submit that out of the 23 witnesses, 9 witnesses have already been examined and the trial of the case is in advance stage. The evidence of the victim is the matter of appreciation which has to be done by the learned trial Court and therefore, the appellant is entitled for bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the appeal. 3 7. Considering the rival submission made by learned counsel for the parties, nature of allegation and the evidence available in the charge- sheet as well as document annexed with the present appeal, further considering that the first bail application of the appellant has been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 11.04.2025 and the trial of the case is in advance stage and 9 witnesses have already been examined, I am not inclined to release the appellant on bail. 8. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge sagrika