1 2025:CGHC:53651 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2048 of 2025 Murlimanohar S/o Shri Govind Nayar Aged About 43 Years R/o Village - Sethinagar, P.S. Shivrinarayan, District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) ... Appellant. versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - S.H.O. P.S. Shivrinarayan, District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) --- Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate. For the State : Mr. KK Bahrani, PL. For the Objector : Mr. Ashish Biswas, Advocate alongwith Victim. Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 03/11/2025 1. This appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for short, 'Act of 1989') is filed against impugned rejection order dated 19.09.2025 (Annexure A-1) passed by learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Janjgir-Champa, (CG) whereby appellants' application filed under Section 483 of BNSS for grant of bail is rejected. 2 2. Appellant is in jail since 15.09.2024 in connection with Crime No. 405/2025 registered at Police Station -Shivrinarayan, District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 115(2), 296, 304(2), 351(2) of BNS (323, 294, newly added, 506 of IPC) and Section 3-1(R-S), 3(2)(va) of the Act of 1989. 3. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that complainant has lodged a report/complaint on 14.09.2025 before the concerned Police Station stating therein that on 13.09.2025 at about 09:00 P.M., he went to purchase the chicken from the shop of Dhanraj situated at Tusma Bhatti Road where the appellant/accused was in drunk condition; when the accused/appellant saw the complainant, he started abusing him in filthy language and said that if complainant does not pay Rs.10,000/- per month, he (accused) will close his Dhaba and, thereafter, he (accused) snatched Rs. 2,000/- from him (complainant) and also slapped and assaulting him with wooden stick. Based upon report lodged by the complainant/victim, FIR was registered against the appellant and he has been arrested. 4. Learned counsel for appellant submits that appellant has been falsely implicated in this case, he has not committed any offence as alleged against him. In the complaint, there is no allegation that the appellant/accused has used any abusive language regarding the caste of the victim/complainant with intent to humiliate him, therefore, no case under SC/ST Act is made out against the appellant/accused. The appellant/accused is a reputed person and 3 only because the appellant/accused has made the complaint against the complainant regarding illegal sale of liquor in his Dhaba, the complainant, his brother Ajay Banjare and one unknown person have assaulted the appellant/accused, as a result of which, he received multiple injuries in his head, back, right elbow and both the legs. The appellant/accused has also lodged the complaint against the complainant and others, based upon which, FIR was registered against them before PS -Shivrinarayan for the offence punishable U/s 115 (2), 351 (3) and 3(5) of BNS (323, 506 and 34 of 1.P.C.). He further contended that offences registered against the appellant/accused under the BNS are bailable. Statements of the prosecution witnesses does not disclose the commission of offence as alleged against him. There is no any other previous criminal antecedent against the appellant, he is in jail since 15.09.2025, charge-sheet has been filed, conclusion of trial may take time, hence, appellant may be released on bail. 5. Learned State Counsel as well as learned counsel for the Objector opposing submission of counsel for the appellant and would submit there is specific evidence/material available against the appellant of committing the aforesaid offence/crime, hence, appellant is not entitled for grant of bail. 6. Heard counsel for respective parties. 7. Victim/complainant is present before this Court alongwith his Counsel and he raised strong objection in granting bail to the appellant. 4 8. Considering entire facts and circumstances of case, nature of allegations, submissions of counsel for the respective parties, statements of the prosecution witnesses, particularly the submission that the appellant/accused has also made a complaint against the complainant and others, based upon which, FIR was registered against them for offence punishable U/s 115 (2), 351 (3) and 3(5) of BNS (323, 506 and 34 of 1.P.C.), further considering that there is no any other previous criminal antecedent against the appellant, there is no evidence/material to show that appellant make an attempt to temper with the witnesses, detention period of appellant, I am inclined to allow this appeal. 9. Accordingly, appeal is allowed. Impugned rejection order (Annexure A-1) is set aside. It is directed that appellant shall be released on regular bail upon his furnishing a bail bond in sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court on the conditions that:- a) Appellant shall appear before trial Court regularly on each and every date, unless exempted from appearance. b) Appellant shall not, in any manner, tamper with the prosecution witnesses. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J/-