1 / 4 2025:CGHC:50140 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1879 of 2025 Pratyush Pandey @ Pratyush Gourav @ Bittu S/o Ranjeet Pandey Aged About 21 Years R/o Behind The Rest House, Raigarh Road- Pathalgaon, Distt.- Jashpur (C.G.) Present Address - Village- Sur, P.S.- Sitapur, Distt.- Surguja (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer Police Station - Sitapur, Distt.- Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate For State : Ms. Upasana Mehta, Dy. GA (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 08/10/2025 1. The instant appeal under Section 14-A (2) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 28/04/2025, passed in Special Session (Atrocities) Case No.44/2024 by the learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Ambikapur, District Surguja, C.G., whereby the application under Section 483 of ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.10.10 11:26:30 +0530 2 / 4 B.N.S.S. of the appellant has been rejected. The appellant has preferred this appeal for grant of regular bail as he is arrested in connection with Crime No.219/2024 registered in Police Station Sitapur, District Surguja, C.G. for offence punishable under sections 365, 323, 302, 201, 506, 212, 147, 120B, 34 of IPC and Sections 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. As per the prosecution case, on 20/07/2024 one Saleema Lakada lodged a written report that her husband Sandeep Lakada has been engaged as Rajmistry by the clerk of contractor Abhishek Pandey namely Gouri Tiwari for carrying out the construction work of School, where he was working. Thereafter, on 07/06/2024 in the evening at about 7-8 PM, Contractor Abhishek Pandey, Gouri Tiwari and Pratyush Pandey committed murder of her husband and have hidden the dead body to some far distant place. Thereafter, on the basis of the report, the investigation was carried out and the memorandum statement of Pratyush Pandey, Guudu Kumar, Tuleshwar Tiwari and other co-accused persons were recorded wherein it was revealed that these persons were working under the contractor namely Abhishek Pandey. The said Abhishek Pandey under suspicion that the deceased has committed theft of iron rods and cement, committed murder of the deceased in connivance with the other co-accused persons. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant used to work as a Supervisor under the Contractor Abhishek Pandey 3 / 4 and the present appellant has not beaten the deceased. He would next contend that the co-accused persons namely Guddu Kumar has been granted bail by this Court in CRA No.959 of 2025; Gauri Tiwari @ Matrika Tiwari has been granted bail by this Court in CRA No.167/2025; Shail Shakti Sahu @ Chhotu has been granted bail in CRA No.443 of 2025 & Tuleshwar Tiwari @ Guddu has been granted bail in CRA No.434 of 2025. He would next contend that the complainant/wife of the deceased has not leveled any allegation against the present appellant in the FIR. He would lastly contend that the chrage-sheet in this case has been filed and no further custodial interrogation is required, therefore, the appellant may be enlarged on bail. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and would submit that the appellant was present at the time of murder on the place of occurrence and after commission of murder he buried the dead body of the deceased in the concrete, therefore, the instant appeal is liable to be dismissed. 5. Today the Victim appeared through video conferencing from DLSA, Sarguja and raised objection with regard to grant of bail to the appellant. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 7. Considering the entire facts & circumstances of the case and looking to the involvement /role of the appellant in the present case that he 4 / 4 was present on the spot when the assault was being made to the deceased and thereafter he buried the dead body of the deceased with the concrete, therefore, looking the involvement of the appellant in the present crime and the objection raised by the complainant, I am not inclined to release the appellant on bail. 8. Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed. However, the learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously as soon as possible. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. SD/- SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu