1 2025:CGHC:6356 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2063 of 2024 1 - Prabhat Singh Rajput S/o Late Shri Ratan Singh Rajput, Aged About 51 Years R/o Village - Rohara Khurd, Police Station - City Kotwali, Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Harsh Singh Rajput S/o Shri Bhagwat Singh Rajput, Aged About 23 Years R/o Village - Rohara Khurd, Police Station - City Kotwali, Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - City Kotwali Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate. For State : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Pandey, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 04.02.2025 1. This appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “the Act, 1989”) is arising out of orders dated 07.10.2024 & 14.10.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, Atrocities Act, Mungeli (C.G.) in Special Case No. 06/2024 for grant of regular bail to the appellants, who have been arrested on 10.04.2024 in connection with Crime No. 55/2024, registered at Police Station– City Kotwali, District- Mungeli (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 506, 323, 307, 34 of I.P.C. and Sections 3(2)(v) & 3(2)(va) of the Act, 1989. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that the complainant/victim’s wife ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Date: 2025.02.05 10:53:24 +0530 2 lodged a complaint before Police Station- City Kotwali alleging that on 02.02.2024 at about 6.00 pm., she was cooking food in her house then only her son shouted that appellant No. 1/ Prabhat Singh Rajput is beating his father then she came out of house and saw that her husband was being beaten by appellant No. 1 and her husband was lying on the floor due to which, her husband received injuries over right side of his head causing bleeding. She tried to stop appellant No. 1 then the appellants abused her also in filthy languages, threatened her to kill and assaulted by club due to which she also sustained injuries on her head, right hand, wrist, left hand, arm and back. Subsequently, the victim was admitted to District Hospital, Mungeli for treatment. Her brother namely Bhavsingh Joshi, Sharad Mangeshkar, Yuvraj Mangeshkar also intervened in the matter. On the basis of complaint, the police registered FIR against the appellants for offence punishable under Sections Sections 294, 506, 323, 34 of I.P.C. and Section 3(2) (va) of the Act, 1989 and after investigation, the police added Section 307 of I.P.C. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the injuries sustained by the complainant were simple in nature and the injuries sustained by the victim were also not fatal that attract Section 307 of I.P.C. He would further submit that the complainant in her statement recorded before the trial Court has clearly stated that appellant No. 2 was not involved in commission of offence and his name has not been mentioned in the FIR. He would further submit that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the crime in question, they are in jail since 10.04.2024 and trial will take some time for conclusion. Hence, it is prayed that the appellants may be released on bail. 3 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant oppose the bail application and would submit that there is sufficient material available in the case diary against the appellants regarding commission of offence. He would further submit that the complainant has categorically narrated the incident how brutally appellant No. 1 has assaulted her husband by club and the injuries sustained by the victim were serious in nature which has been supported by the doctor. He would further submit that the appellants assaulted the victim & complainant, abused and threatened them to kill. Hence, the bail applications may kindly be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary with utmost satisfaction. 6. The complainant in her statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. has stated that appellant No. 1 has assaulted her husband/victim by stick on her head and back due to which he sustained injuries on his head and back. The victim in his statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. has stated that appellant No. 2 assaulted him twice by weighing iron of 1 kg. due to which he sustained injuries on his head and fell down and appellant No. 1 has assaulted him by club on his back. He has further stated that the appellants have also abused them by caste and threatened her to kill. The other witnesses namely Toran Das Mangeshkar, Bhavsingh Joshi & Yuvraj Mangeshkar have also supported case of the prosecution. 7. Considering gravity of offence, the manner in which offence has been committed as also the statement of the complainant, victim and other witnesses, prima facie, it reflects that the offence has been committed 4 by both the appellants. As such, I am of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case for grant of bail to the appellants. 8. Accordingly, the instant appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. The observation made by this Court is not bearing any effect on the trial of the case. The learned trial court will decide the criminal trial in accordance with evidence, material placed on record without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court while deciding the present bail application. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Arun