1 2025:CGHC:56472 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 2161 of 2025 Sanjay Sonkar @ Sanju S/o Shriram Sonkar Aged About 23 Years R/o Vindhyawasini Ward, Kargil Chowk, Dhamtari, Police Station City Kotwali, Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station- Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) --- Respondent For Appellant : Ms. Gunja Taram, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Vivek Sharma, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 19/11/2025 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 judgment dated 23.07.2025 (Annexure A-1) passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) in Special Sessions Case (SC/ST Act) No.16/2023, whereby appellant application filed under Section 439 of CrPC of the for grant of bail is rejected. 2 2. Appellant is in jail since 23.04.2023 in connection with Crime No.130/2023 registered at Police Station - Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act. 3. Case of prosecution in brief is that the FIR was lodged on 21-04-2023 by Yogesh Dhruv against Ganesh Rajput, Prakash and others alleging in it that on 21-04-2023, he along with his friend Rajendra Dewangan and Yogesh Netam went to Kargil Chowk, and when they were returning from their motorcycle, at that time Ganesh Rajput and Prakash along with their friend were present and due to old rivalry, Yogesh Netam used filthy language and one of the friend of Ganesh Rajput assaulted Yogesh Netam with the Iron rod and thereafter Ganesh Rajput, Prakash assaulted Yogesh Netam with the knife, on account of which Yogesh Netam died. 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. She further submits that the name of appellant is not mentioned in the FIR, there are only two persons named in the FIR i.e. Ganesh Rajput and Prakash and even as per the averment of the FIR, there is no specific role attributed by the applicant for the commission of alleged offences. She further contended that the FIR was lodged on 21-04-2023 by Yogesh Dhruv in which he has not stated with regard to the role attributed by the appellant for the commission of alleged offences and his police 3 statement was recorded on 01-05-2023, in which he states that the present appellant assaulted the deceased Yogesh Netam with the belt, which was afterthought, because in the FIR there is no averments that the appellant in any manner actively participated for the commission of alleged offences. The appellant being the friend of main accused Yogesh Dhruv have been implicated for the commission of the alleged offences. The appellant is in jail since 23-04-2023 and it will take sufficient time for trial to be concluded and looking to the peculiar facts of the case that the victim is a married to the appellant, the Court may kind enough to consider the case of appellant for grant of bail. 5. Reliance has been placed by counsel for the appellant in CRA No.610/2023 (Kamal Prakash Chandra Vs. State of Chhattisgarh) passed by this Court on 28.04.2023 and MCRC(A) No.947/2014 (Umesh Prasad @ Nandev & Ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh) passed by this Court on 20.11.2014. Therefore, it is prayed that this Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 23.07.2025 (Annexure A-1) and kindly consider for grant of regular bail to the appellant. 6. Learned State Counsel opposed the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the order passed by the trial Court is just and proper needs no interference. 7. I have heard counsel for respective parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 4 8. In compliance of Court’s order dated 07.11.2025, complainant has appeared before this Court through video conferencing from the DSLA Dhamtari (C.G.) and on being asked, opposed for grant of bail to the appellant. 9. Considering entire facts and circumstances of the case and submission made by counsel for the parties. On perusal of order of the trial Court, it reveals that the accused committed the crime in furtherance of a common intention, killing the deceased Yogesh Netam by inflicting severe injuries with rods, knives, belts, and fists. Among them, applicant/accused Sanjay Sonkar alias Sanju assaulted the deceased Yogesh Netam with his fists in furtherance of a common intention. If a crime is committed with a common intention or in furtherance of a common intention, each accused is liable as if he or she had committed the same act committed by the other accused. Therefore, the applicant/accused cannot be granted any benefit solely on the basis of physical assault. The incident occurred in broad daylight and in a public place. Granting bail to the accused in such a case could adversely impact the justice system. Apart from this, it has been told in the police report that against the accused Sanjay Sonkar alias Sanju, in City Kotwali Police Station, Dhamtari, crime number 81/15, section 13 Gambling Act, crime number 460/17, section 294, 323, 506 IPC, crime number 79/19, section 13 Gambling Act, 18/21, section 294, 323, 506 IPC, crime number 553/21, Sections 294, 323, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code have been registered. The accused is said to have a criminal tendency. He has several 5 previous cases registered against him and is found to have a criminal record. Therefore, considering the above facts and circumstances and gravity of offence, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to grant regular bail to the appellant. 10. Accordingly, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed. 11. However, this Court hopes and trust that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, if there is no legal impediment. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant