1 2025:CGHC:7091 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1937 of 2024 Sharad Vaishnav S/o Bhuvaneshwar Das Vaishnav, aged about 31 years, R/o Kariyatola, Ward No. 8, Dongargaon, Police Station and Tehsil - Dongargaon, District- Rajnandgaon, (C.G.) ...Appellant Versus State of Chhattisgarh through P S Dongargaon, District- Rajnandgaon, (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Pranav Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Ajay Pandey, G.A. Hon'ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on board 07.02.2025 1. This is the first bail application. 2. This appeal has arisen out of order dated 01.10.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocity), District-Balrampur-Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) by which, appellant’s application for grant of bail has been rejected. 3. The appellant has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 54/2020 registered at Police Station - Dongargaon, District – Rajnandgaon (CG) for alleged commission of offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 323, 307, 2 302/149 of IPC and Section 3 (2) (V) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act of 1989’). 4. Prosecution case is that the appellant is alleged to have committed the murder of one Kriparam and Ganesh. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there are total 38 witnesses projected in the charge sheet out of which only 19 witnesses have been examined. It is submitted that majority of the independent witnesses have been examined and there statement does not inspire confidence. The appellant is in jail since 11.03.2020 and remained in detention for more than 04 years and the trial is not likely to be concluded early and also there is no specific allegation against the present appellant, the main allegation is against Shubham Vaishnav and Pawan Vaishnav and the co-accused person namely Sagar Vaishnav has been enlarged the privilege of bail by this Court’s order dated 19.06.2024 in CRA No. 842 of 2024. Therefore, he prays that looking to the detention period, the same set of evidence, the present appellant is also entitled for privilege of bail and further submits that there is no such seizure of any weapon at the instance of the appellant. 6. Per Contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application. 7. Despite service of the notice no one appeared on behalf of the complainant. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions. 9. Having considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the co-accused has been granted bail vide order dated 19.06.2024 passed in CRA No. 842 of 2024, considering the detention 3 period of the appellant as he is in jail since 11.03.2020 and the trial is likely to take some time, without commenting anything on merits, I am inclined to grant bail to the appellant. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. It is directed that the appellant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- along with one surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court on the condition that- a) He shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. b) He shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. c) He shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. d) He shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future. CRA 11. The observations made here-in-above are only for the purpose of deciding the bail application and the trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits without being influenced by any observation made herein above. If any of the above conditions is violated by the appellant, the State will be at liberty to file application for cancellation of bail granted to him. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE Uttej