1 2025:CGHC:7390 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 167 of 2025 Gauri Tiwari @ Matrika Tiwari S/o Revati Tiwari Aged About 38 Years R/o Sakin Beljora P.S. Stapur District - Sarguja (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Sitapur District - Sarguja (C.G.). --- Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Akhand Pratap Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent-State : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, PL. Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 10/02/2025 1. This appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for short, 'Act of 1989') is filed against impugned rejection order dated 17.12.2024 passed by learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Ambikapur, (CG) whereby appellant’s application filed under Section 439 of Cr.PC, for grant of bail has been rejected. 2. Appellant is in jail since 09.09.2024 in connection with Crime No. 219/2024 registered at Police Station -Sitapur District - Sarguja (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 365, 323, 302, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act of 1989. 3. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that present appellant alongwith other co- accused persons have abducted the Sandeep Lakda (deceased) and 2 thereafter, killed him. Based upon report lodged by complainant (wife of deceased), FIR was registered against the appellant and he has been arrested. 4. Learned counsel for appellant submits that appellant has been falsely implicated in this case, he has not committed any offence as alleged against him. Prosecution story is solely based upon the circumstantial evidence, there is no evidence/material available which shows that appellant was involved in the alleged offence/crime. There is no any other previous criminal antecedent against the applicant. Co-accused persons have already enlarged on bail by the Court below vide Annexure P-2. Applicant is in jail since 09.09.2024, charge-sheet has been filed, conclusion of trial may take time, hence, appellant may be released on bail. 5. Learned State Counsel opposing submission of counsel for the appellant submits that there is specific evidence against the appellant, hence, applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 6. Heard counsel for respective parties. 7. Complainant is present before this Court through virtual mode from the concerned District Legal Services Authority and raised objection in granting bail to applicant. 8. Considering entire facts and circumstances of case, nature of allegation, statements of prosecution witnesses, role of present appellant in commission of crime/offence, further considering that co-accused persons have already enlarged on bail by the Court below vide, there is no any other previous criminal antecedent against the appellant, no evidence/material is available which shows that appellant make an attempt to temper with the witnesses, detention period of appellant, I am 3 inclined to allow this appeal. 9. Accordingly, appeal is allowed. Impugned rejection order (Annexure A-1) is set aside. It is directed that appellant shall be released on regular bail upon his furnishing a bail bond in sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court on the conditions that:- a) Appellant shall appear before trial Court regularly on each and every date, unless exempted from appearance. b) Appellant shall not, in any manner, tamper with the prosecution witnesses. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J/-