2025:CGHC:51262 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1902 of 2025 1 - Umend Kumar Nishad S/o Late Shri Budhram Nishad, Aged About 42 Years 2 - Shiv Narayan Nishad, S/o Late Shri Budhram Nishad, Aged About 21 Years 3 - Genduram Nishad, S/o Late Shri Budhram Nishad, Aged About 27 Years All R/o Village - Mohera, Police Station - Magarload, District - Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh) ... Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Ajak Magarload District - Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh) ...Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from the CIS) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellants : Shri Lav Sharma, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Pranjal Shukla, PL ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 14.10.2025 1. Pursuant to order dated 16.09.2025, victim and his mother appeared through virtual mode from the DLSA Dhamtari, and raised objection in granting bail to the appellants. Their objection is taken on record. 2. 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 appellants against the order dated 26.07.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Dhamtari CG, in Case No.434 of 2025, whereby the regular bail application of the appellants filed under Section 483 of Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2025.10.15 17:25:07 +0530 Cra 1902 of 2025 2 the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS 2023) has been rejected. Appellants have been arrested in connection with Crime No.60 of 2025, registered at Police Station AJAK Magarlod, District-Dhamtari for offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 117(2), 3(5) of the BNS, 2023, and Section 3(1)(द), 3(2)(v)(क) of the SC/ST Act. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 25.04.2025, when the present appellants were beating son of appellant-1 Umend Kumar Nishad, victim intervened them and asked not to beat the minor boy. On this issue, at about 12 in the noon, when the victim was returning to his house from the fields, on his way, appellants assaulted him by hands, fists, stone, and lathi, by which the victim received grievous injuries including fracture of fronto temporal bone of head and mandible bone. Matter was reported to the Police, victim has been taken to the hospital, the appellants were arrested, and charge-sheet has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the incident was a free fight between the appellants and victim, in which appellants also received injuries. There is no query report of injuries received on the body of the victim, that the injuries could have been caused by either stone, or lathi. There is no assault made to the victim intentionally, but due to scuffling between the parties, victim fell on the stone, and received injuries. Applicants are in jail since 23.07.2025, investigation has been completed, and charge-sheet has also been filed in the case. Final adjudication of the appeal would take some more time. Therefore, appellants may be enlarged on bail. Cra 1902 of 2025 3 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant and would submit that on the issue of stopping the appellants from beating their minor boy, victim was brutally assaulted by the appellants. Incident was witnessed by one Manish Sahu, and there is allegation of beating by lathi, stone, hands and fists. The injured Netram Kurrey received severe injuries, including fracture of his head, therefore, appellants are not entitled for bail. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case-diary. 7. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, material collected during the investigation, nature of allegation, and further considering the injuries found on the body of the victim-Netram Kurrey, his statement, and the statement of eyewitness Manish Sahu, I am not inclined to grant bail to the appellants. Accordingly, their bail application is hereby rejected. 8. Appeal filed by the appellants is hereby dismissed. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE padma