1 2025:CGHC:49455 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1757 of 2025 1 - Mohit Kumar Yadav S/o Heeradhar Yadav Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Atang Police Station Kurud District- Dhamtari (C.G.) (Wrongly Mentioned As Mohit Yadav In Order Dated 9.12.2024. ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, P.S. Kurud District- Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Shri Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate. For State : Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy. Govt. Advocate. For Objector : Shri Sumit Singh Rathore, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Judgment on Board 26.09.2025 1. Notice issued to victim on 29.08.2025 is served upon the complainant/victim and they are represented through their counsel Shri Sumit Singh Rathore, who raised objection in granting bail to the appellant. His objection is taken on record. 2. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred under Section 14(A)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, 'the Act, 1989') against order dated 23.07.2025 passed in Special Criminal Case No.12/2024 by the Special Judge (Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe Prevention of Atrocities Act) Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2025.09.26 14:21:51 +0530 2 Dhamtari, whereby the regular bail application filed by the appellant has been rejected. 3. This is second round of Criminal Appeal filed by the appellant for grant of regular bail. On the earlier round of regular bail application, the appellant had filed Criminal Appeal No. 1921 of 2024 before this court which was dismissed as withdrawn without any liberty vide order dated 09.12.2024. Thereafter, the appellant moved another bail application before the trial court for grant of regular bail which was also rejected vide order dated 23.07.2025 against which the present appeal has been filed which is in the nature of Second Bail application of the appellant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant is in jail since 27.06.2024; out of 30 witnesses 10 witnesses have been examined but they have not fully supported the prosecution’s case; there are material omissions and contradictions in their evidence; there is no direct allegation against the appellant that he committed the offence; the alleged offence is of Section 304 IPC and therefore looking to his detention period and delay in trial the appellant may be enlarged on bail. 5. 5. On the other hand the counsel for the State as well as objector oppose the submissions so made and submit that while dismissing the first bail application (CRA No.1921 of 2024) no liberty was granted in favour of the appellant. All the factual aspects have already been argued by the counsel for the appellant when his first bail application in the form of Criminal Appeal No.1921 of 2024 was dismissed. The trial of the case is in progress and 10 witnesses have been examined. The evidence of witnesses are to be considered by the trial court at the time of 3 adjudication of the criminal case. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to be released on bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the appeal. 7. Considering the submissions made by the counsel for respective parties, facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of offence, considering the fact that the first bail application of the appellant (in Criminal Appeal No.1921 of 2024) have already been dismissed by this court vide judgment dated 09.12.2024 and also considering the fact that 10 witnesses have already been examined before the trial court, I am not inclined to release the appellant on bail. 8. Consequently, Criminal Appeal also stands dismissed. However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the case. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder