1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2101 of 2024 1 - Saddam Khan S/o Late Mustfa Khan Aged About 25 Years R/o Kusmi, Police Station - Kusmi, District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer Police Chowki Pandrapath, Police Station - Bagicha, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Shri Basant Kaiwartya, Advocate. For State : Shri Rishabh Chandra Singh Deo, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Judgment on Board 02.01.2025 1. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, the SC/ST Act) against order dated 13.11.2024 passed by the Special Judge (Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe Prevention of Atrocities Act) Jashpur in Special SC/ST Act case No.23/2023 whereby the bail application filed by the appellant under Section 439 CrPC has been rejected. 2. On 26.11.2024 this court had directed to issue notice to the victim/complainant for their appearance, but no one appears on her behalf to record submission. Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2025.01.03 13:28:31 +0530 2 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant had filed first bail application before the Trial Court for grant of regular bail which was dismissed vide order dated 16.04.2024 which was challenged by the appellant before this court by filing CRA No.867 of 2024 claiming regular bail to the appellant. The said Criminal Appeal No.867 of 2024 came up for hearing before this court on 10.06.2024 and the same was dismissed on merits. The second bail application of the appellant was dismissed as withdrawn on 06.11.2024 in CRA No.1963 of 2024. Some of the witnesses have been examined in the case and they have not fully supported the prosecution case. Therefore, the appellant again moved application before the Trial Court for grant of regular bail which was dismissed on 13.11.2024. Thereafter, the present third bail application has been filed by way of this Criminal Appeal. He would further submit that only few witnesses have been examined and final adjudication of case is taking time, the appellant is in jail since 10.09.2023, and therefore, he may be enlarged on bail by allowing this appeal. 4. On the other hand the counsel for the State opposes the appeal and submits that the first bail application of the appellant has been dismissed on merits vide order dated 10.06.2024 in CRA No. 867 of 2024. On the date when CRA No.867 of 2024 was decided, the victim was already examined on 06.04.2024 and despite that his first bail application was dismissed. Since the trial is going on, there is no change of circumstances and therefore the appellant is not entitled for bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the appeal. 3 6. From perusal of order dated 10.06.2024 passed in CRA No.867 of 2024 (Annexure A/4) it appears that the first bail application of the appellant has been dismissed on merit and while deciding the first bail application on merit, it had been observed that evidence of prosecutrix requires consideration which cannot be appreciated at the stage of considering the bail application. Merely examination of some of the witnesses during trial cannot be said to be change in circumstances which leads to grant bail to the appellant. I do not find any good ground to entertain the third bail application of the appellant in the form of preset Criminal Appeal and the same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder