1 2025:CGHC:53787 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2181 of 2025 Dhaman Lal Dhankar S/o Late Parasram Aged About 60 Years R/o Mujgahan Karhibhadar Police Station Tehsil And District Balod C.G. ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through S H O Police Station Rajhara District Balod C.G. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Dilmen Rati Minj, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order On Board 04.11.2025 1. The appellant has preferred this Criminal Appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the SC/ST Act’), challenging Order dated 09.9.2025 passed by Special Judge, (SC/ST Act.), Balod, Distt. Balod (CG) in Special Sessions Case No.17/2023, whereby application filed by the appellant under Section 70(2) read with Section 493 CrPC (Section 72(2) and 483 of the BNSS, 2023), has been rejected. 2. Facts leading to file instant appeal are that, Special Sessions Case No.17/2023 for the offence under Section 120(b), 364(A), 365, 386 of IPC and Section 76(d) of the IT Act and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, is BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2025.11.06 10:49:20 +0530 2 pending consideration against the appellant and other co-accused persons, which was fixed for hearing on 26.4.2025, but the appellant did not present on that day, therefore, warrant of arrest was issued against him by the Special Court. In compliance of that arrest warrant, the appellant was arrested on 09.9.2025 and produced before Special Court. The application filed on behalf of the appellant under Section under Section 70(2) read with Section 493 CrPC (Section 72(2) and 483 of the BNSS, 2023) has been rejected by the Special Court vide impugned Order dated 09.9.2025, which give rise to filing of instant appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that on 26.4.2025 the case was fixed for hearing, however, prior to that, the appellant was sick, therefore, he could not inform his counsel about his illness and inadvertently his counsel also could not appear when the case was called out. Thus, he submits that non appearance of the appellant on 26.4.2025 was bonafide, hence, he prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the appellant may directed to be release on bail. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that arrest warrant was issued against the appellant on 26.4.2025. If he was ill, after recovery i.e. on 30.4.2025, he ought to have made his appearance, but in five hearing he did not appear before the Court. This fact shows that he was negligent on his appearance before the Special Court, thus, he violated the terms of the bail granted to him, hence, the appeal is liable to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Perusal of impugned Order dated 09.9.2025 passed by Special Court shows that the appellant did not appear before the Court on 26.4.2025, when the case was called out for hearing, therefore, arrest warrant was 3 issued against him. But it has not been mentioned in the impugned order whether prior to 26.4.2025, the appellant was regularly appearing before the Court or not. If he had appeared on the earlier dates of hearing and filed application for cancellation of order of arrest warrant, mentioning therein that he was sick prior to 26.4.2025 and his counsel inadvertently could not appear before the Court, the learned Special Court ought to have taken a more liberal view. In the impugned order, it has been mentioned by the Special Court that the appellant did not appear in five hearings subsequent to Order dated 26.4.2025, but it has not been mentioned that whether he regularly attended the Court prior to 26.4.2025, hence bonafideness of the appellant cannot be doubted. Therefore, I feel inclined allow instant appeal. 7. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and it is directed that on the appellant’s furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- a) he shall appear before the concerned Court as and when so directed unelss exempted from appearance. b) he shall not, in any manner, tamper with the prosecution witnesses. c) If they are found involved in similar offence in future, then, it will be open for the State to apply for cancellation of his bail. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Bini