1 2025:CGHC:306 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2260 of 2024 • Ajit Gupta S/o Shri Ajay Gupta, Aged About 21 Years R/o Shikari Road, Bouripara, Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant. versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏcer Police Station Ambikapur, District Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh. ... State/respondent. For Appellant. : Shri Rohan Sharma appears on behalf of Shri Aditya Kumar Mishra, Advocate. For State : Shri Ajit Singh, GA and Shri Anurag Tripathi, PL. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board 03/01/2025 1. This appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the “SC/ST Act”) has been filed against the order dated 11.11.2024 passed by Special Judge Atrocities, Ambikapur District Surguja C.G. rejecting the application AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2025.01.03 16:51:58 +0530 2 under Section 439 Cr.PC in connection with Crime No.160/2022 registered at Police Station Ambikapur, District Surguja (Ambikapur), C.G. for the offence punishable under Sections 452, 294, 506-II, 427/34 and 307/34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act. 2. Prosecution case in brief is that on 27.02.2022 present appellant and his brother/co-accused namely Sujit Gupta entered the house of complainant and started abusing her in filthy language. When complainant’s husband Sanjay Cherva tried to stop them, the present appellant inflicted knife injury on his stomach. Based on above incident, offence has been registered against the present appellant. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He would submit that out of 14 witnesses, 7 witnesses have been examined so far; conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time. He would further submit that injured witness has not been cross examined and the appellant is behind the bars since 02.03.2022. Learned counsel further submits that other co-accused namely Sujit Gupta has already been enlarged on bail by this court vide order dated 10.05.2022 passed in CRA No.564 of 2022. Considering the backdrop, present appellant may kindly be enlarged on bail. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel would oppose the bail application and would submit that earlier bail application of the appellant was dismissed on merits vide order dated 10.05.2022 passed in CRA No.564 of 2022. Subsequent to which, second bail application of the present appellant was again dismissed on merits reserving liberty in favour of the present appellant that if the injured victim Sanjay Cherva is not examined within a 3 period of 6 months, he may revive his application on the ground of delay in trial vide order dated 19.04.2024 passed in CRA No.646 of 2024. He would submit that after such observation the said witness was examined on 21.05.2024 and on such date, one counsel has requested that the original counsel is out of station in regard to another case. In such circumstances, cross examination could not be completed. He would further submit that material witness Sanjay Ram(PW-2) has categorically deposed that present appellant caused stab injury. Therefore, considering the nature and gravity of offence, present appellant is not entitled to be released on bail. 5. Examination in chief of PW-2 Sanjay Ram was done on 21.05.2024 and on that date counsel who has accepted the brief on behalf of accused has not made his appearance for cross-examination and another counsel who has conducted cross examination of the other witnesses made a prayer that original counsel is out of station for another case i.e. at Jashpur court. Taking into consideration the said prayer, learned Sessions Judge granted adjournment for cross-examination on 21.05.2024 and the witness was bound over for 23.05.2024. On such date, it is not explicit whether the said witness has turned up or not as neither any information has been recorded nor the party has drawn attention of the Court in this regard. 6. It is the duty of every stakeholder not only Judge but the Prosecutor as well that for proper administration of justice compliance of earlier orders are made. Even the learned prosecutor has not prepared the subsequent trial program including prime witness. In such circumstances, the cross- examination of the said witness has not been completed. 4 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the statement of PW-2, as also nature and gravity of offence, I am not inclined to grant bail to the appellant. 8. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. 9. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the concerned Prosecutor shall prefer suitable application for including the said witness in trial program and shall also ensure presence of the said witness on dates of hearing with the help of concerned Superintendent of Police. On such date of hearing, it is expected from the Defence lawyer to complete the cross-examination. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Avinash