1 2025:CGHC:60241 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2596 of 2025 Asim Kumar Thapa S/o Late Shri Rajendra Kumar Aged About 53 Years R/o Bijli Office Road, Champa, Police Station - Champa, District - Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Ajak, Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Vivek Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate For Complainant : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, For State : Ms. Priya Sharma, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 11/12/2025 1. This appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Caste and MADHURIMA THAKUR Digitally signed by MADHURIMA THAKUR Date: 2025.12.11 18:21:58 +0530 2 Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is filed against impugned order dated 02.12.2024 (Annexure A-1) in Crime No. 09/2025 passed by learned Special Judge SC & ST (PA) Act Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) whereby appellant’s application filed under Section 483 of BNSS for grant of bail is rejected. 2. Appellant is in jail since 02.12.2025 in connection with Crime No. 09/2025 registered at Police Station-Ajak, Janjgir District- Janjgir- Chmapa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 406, 420, 506 of IPC [296, 316(2), 318(4), 351(2)/(3) of BNS] and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v-a) of SC/ST Act. 3. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that complainant Krishna Kumar Tandon’s grandfather namely Late Shri Mayaram Suryavanshi had three sons namely Bhagauram Suryavanshi, Late Buddudas Suryavanshi and Buddheshwar Prasad Suryavanshi. Complainant is the son of Late Buddhudas Suryanshi. His grandfather Late Shri Mayaram Suryavanshi sold his ancestral land bearing Khasra No. 1466/2, 1466/3, 1467/1, total area 1 acre 49 decimal on 19.03.2020 to Anshuman Murarka- Director of Tirupati Minerals Pvt. Ltd. For a sale consideration of Rs. 19,36,500/- before the witnesses through a registered sale deed. The said amount of Rs. 19,36,500/- was paid by Anshuman Murarka through cheque no. 010204 of his bank account in HDFC Bank to his grandfather. On 17.06.2025 the complainant went with the photocopy of the said cheque at HDFC Bank, Champa to enquire about encashment of 3 the said cheque, he was informed by the Bank Manager that his grandfather Late Shri Mayaram had a joint account with the applicant Asim Kumar and for want of any transaction in the said account, it was blocked. However, the said sale consideration was not received by the complainant or his family members. The applicant in connivance with the Director of Tirupati Minerals namely Anshuman Murarka, fraudulently got his name added in the account of grandfather of the complainant and withdrew the amount of Rs. 19,36,500/-. On 25.08.2025 the appellant preferred an application u/s 482 of BNSS for grant of anticipatory bail in which notice was issued to the complainant who appeared on 28.08.2025 and raised objection to anticipatory bail to the appellant. Against the said order, the appellant preferred an appeal bearing CRA No. 1890/2025 before this Hon’ble Court which was subsequently withdrawn on 03.11.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and they have falsely implicated in the case. He further contended that the complainant has executed an agreement wherein he has categorically stated that no offence as alleged has been committed by the appellant, and in fact, on the basis of incorrect and incomplete information he had lodged a report against the appellant. He stated that neither he has any objection to grant of bail to the appellant nor any of his family members has any such objection. The said agreement dated 11.09.2025 was executed before the witnesses. On the same day the complainant 4 has also sworn an affidavit to the effect that he has no ill-will or animosity with the appellant and that he has executed the agreement dated 11.09.2025 without any pressure, coercion and out of his own free will and does not want any further leal proceedings against the appellant. 5. Learned State Counsel objected the prayer stating that in the judgment rendered by the Trial Court all incriminating circumstances are against the accused/applicant which connects him with the crime and chain of circumstances are fully linked and completed with each other. 6. Learned Counsel for the complainant raised no objection to the contentions raised by the counsel for the appellant. 7. Heard counsel for respective parties. 8. Considering entire facts and circumstances of case, nature of allegations, submission of counsel for appellant that the complainant has sworn an affidavit on 11.09.2025 to the effect that he has no ill-will or animosity with the appellant and he has executed the agreement dated 11.09.2025 without any pressure, coercion and out of his own free will and does not want any further legal proceedings against the appellant (Annexure A/5). Therefore, I am inclined to allow this appeal. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated 02.12.2025 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 5 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. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima