1 2025:CGHC:53869 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2013 of 2025 1 - Heeraman Sahu S/o Late Purendra Kumar Sahu, Aged About 26 Years R/o Village- Jagtara, Police Station And District Balod (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Balod, District Balod (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant(s) : Mr. S.C. Verma, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Kalpesh Ruparel, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 04/11/2025 1. Pursuant to the order dated 07.10.2025, the complainant appeared through virtual mode from DLSA, Balod and raised objection in granting bail to the appellant. His objection is taken on record. 2. The present is a criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 filed by the appellant against the impugned order dated 29.08.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, Balod, District Balod (C.G.) in Bail Application No. 306/2025, whereby the bail application filed by the appellant under Section 483 of BNSS, VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.11.04 19:22:11 +0530 2 2023 for grant of regular bail is rejected in connection with Crime No. 228/2025, registered at Police Station Balod, District Balod (C.G.). 3. The present appeal is arising out of the order dated 29.08.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, Balod, in Bail Application No. 306/2025, whereby the regular bail application of the appellant has been rejected. The appellant is in jail since 28.08.2025 pursuant to the offence of Crime No. 228/2025 registered at AJAK Police, Balod for the offence under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 4. The case of the prosecution is that on 04.06.2025, the complainant lodged a report that, on 02.06.2025, when he along with his wife had gone to Durg for his family work, on the way, the appellant called him at Balod and on the way near Shitla Mandir, the appellant came there, demanded the money back, which was borrowed by him and when he gave him Rs. 10,000/-, he demanding his entire money back, started altercation and abusing. After short while, the co- accused Ashish Gupta came there and he too have abused him and assaulted by hand and fists. When his wife tried to intervene, she too have been assaulted by the accused persons. The incident was witnessed by the witnesses Jagdish, Asha Bai and Rahul and thereafter, he lodged the report. On the report lodged by the complainant, the offence of Sections 115(2), 296, 3(5) and 351(2) of BNS was registered and during the course of investigation, the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act has been added, in which the appellant has been arrested on 28.08.2025 and after investigation charge-sheet has been filed. 5. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the offences under the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 is bailable one, however, only the offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is non-bailable. There is no ingredient under the SC/ST Act in the alleged complaint, as the substantive offence under the IPC does not provide the maximum sentence of 10 years or more. Therefore, the offence under Section 3 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act is not applicable in the present case. It is only when the appellant demanded the money back, the altercation took place, which does not come under the SC/ST Act. The appellant is in jail since 28.08.2025, investigation has been completed and charge- sheet has been filed. No custodial interrogation is required. He would further submit that, although, there is a criminal antecedent against the present appellant for the offence under Sections 376(2)(n), 506 Part-II, 323 and 354-C of IPC and Section 67-A of Information Technology Act, 2000, however, vide judgment dated 01.06.2024, passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge/In-charge FTC, Balod, the appellant has been acquitted from the alleged offences. He would also referred to the document (Annexure A/3), which is the copy of the judgment dated 01.06.2024. The co-accused Ashish Gupta has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 23.09.2025, in CRA No. 1818 of 2025. In such circumstances, learned counsel for the appellant prayed that the appellant may be released on bail. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that from perusal of the FIR, there is sufficient material against the appellant that he intentionally committed the offence with the complainant, for which he has been arrested. He would also submit that, since there is criminal antecedent against the appellant, therefore, he is not entitled for bail. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the appeal. 8. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, considering the nature of allegations and also from perusal of FIR, this Court does not find any material to substantiate the offence of Section 3 (2)(v) of SC/ST Act. From the FIR, it transpires that, it is only when the appellant demanded his money back, the incident occurred and on the way, the appellant had allegedly assaulted the complainant by hand and fists. Considering the totality of the case against the present appellant and also the fact that he is in jail since 4 28.08.2025, the nature of the offences under the BNS, co-accused Ashish Gupta has been granted bail by this Court on 23.09.2025, I am inclined to release the appellant on bail. 9. The appeal is allowed. It is directed that the appellant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court for his appearance before learned trial Court on each date of hearing unless exempted. 10. It is made clear that any observation made in this order is restricted only to considering the bail application. 11. Learned trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits without being influence by any observation made in this order. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved