Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 49983 (CHH)

SAROJ KUMAR TRIPATHI v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

CRA/1805/2025 · 2025-10-16

Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:CGHC:52024 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1805 of 2025 Saroj Kumar Tripathi S/o Bhikhari Charan @ Chudamadi Aged About 44 Years (Wrongly Mentioned As 25 Years), R/o Village- Sarkanda, Police Station - Sohela, District- Bargarh (Orissa). ... Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station - Saraipali, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ...Respondent (Cause title is taken from the CIS) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellant : Shri Gurudev I Sharan, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Vivek Sharma, PL ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 17.10.2025 1. Present appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, ‘SC/ST Act’) has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 18.08.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Mahasamund, District-Mahasamund, CG, in Special Sessions Case-3 of 2025, whereby the regular bail application filed by the appellant has been rejected. 2. This court has issued notice to the complainant on 04.09.2025, however, the notice could not be served upon her and again another fresh notice was issued on 19.09.2025. Pursuant to said notice, a report has been submittedby Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2025.10.28 10:46:30 +0530 Cra 1805 of 2025 2 the Station House Officer, PS-Saraipali, district-Mahasamund that the complainant is not residing at the given address, since 2-3 years, and her whereabouts could not be traced out. 3. In view of above, this Court proceeds to hear the appeal with respect to regular bail application of the appellant. 4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that alleged offence was committed in the year 2006. On 13.01.2006, complainant lodged a report that the appellant murdered her mother with an iron pipe. FIR of Crime No.27 of 2006 for the offence under Section 302/325 of the IPC and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act was registered. However, appellant could not be arrested, and charge-sheet has been filed showing the appellant absconding. Learned trial Court issued permanent warrant of arrest against the appellant, and in compliance of the warrant, he was arrested on 09.02.2025 in the present case. He moved bail application before the learned trial Court, which has been rejected vide order dated 18.08.2025, and the same has been challenged before this Court in the present appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there is no sufficient evidence against the appellant to implicate him in the alleged offence. Appellant was very well available in the village, who earns his livelihood, and he does not know about any incident. It is only on suspicion, appellant has been arrested on 09.02.2025 for the alleged offence of commission of murder of mother of the complainant. Trial of the case will take its own time, and therefore, appellant may be released on bail. Cra 1805 of 2025 3 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes, and would submit that daughter of the deceased is the eyewitness, and she lodged named report to the Police on 13.01.2006. Since then, appellant was absconding, and he could only be arrested on 09.02.2025. Trial of the case is going on, and in view of his long period of absconding, he is not entitled for bail. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case-diary. 8. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, material collected during the investigation, nature of allegation, and further considering the statement of the eyewitness-Jasbir Kaur, and also the fact that the appellant remained absconding from 2006 to 2025, I am not inclined to release the appellant on bail. 9. Accordingly, the application in the form of present appeal filed by the appellant- Saroj Kumar Tripathi, s/o Bhikhari Charan @ Chudamadi is dismissed. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE padma