1 2025:CGHC:53755 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1905 of 2025 1 - Dipankalnath Yogi S/o Pramod Yogi Aged About 24 Years R/o Ward No.05, Shikari Baba Colony, Dallirajhara, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Rajhara, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent CRA No. 1908 of 2025 1 - Aashish Padhi @ Bhaski S/o Jagdish Padhi Aged About 26 Years R/o Ward No.19, Subhash Chowk, Dallirajhara, Police Station Rajhara, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Rajhara, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent (Cause title as taken from Case Information System) For Appellant in both the cases : Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2025.11.06 18:10:51 +0530 2 For State/Respondent in both the cases : Ms. Prabha Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order on Board 04/11/2025 1. Both the criminal appeals arise from the same crime number i.e. 414/2022, registered at Police Station – Rajhara, District – Balod, hence, both the appeals are heard together and decided by this common order. 2. Both the criminal appeals have been filed under Section 14(A) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (henceforth ‘the SC/ST Act’) against orders dated 23.06.2025 and 11.06.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, District Balod respectively, whereby regular bail applications filed under Section 483 of BNSS for grant of bail has been rejected. Appellant Dipankalnath was arrested on 31.05.2025 (wrongly mentioned as 06.06.2025 in memo of appeal) and appellant Aashish Padhi@Bhaski was arrested on 15.05.2025 in connection with aforementioned crime number for the offence under Section 120-B, 364(A), 365, 386 of IPC as also under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act and Section 66 (d) of the IT Act. 3. The case of prosecution in brief is that present appellants, by way of a conspiracy with co-accused persons, kidnapped 3 complainant Prashant Meshram & Dinesh Sonwani and obtained Rs.2,60,000/- from them. 4. Based on the above facts, present crime has been registered against both the appellants and other accused persons, thereafter charge-sheets were filed, which are pending consideration. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants would submits that earlier first charge-sheet was filed against 8 accused persons, thereafter, second supplementary charge-sheet was filed against 2 accused persons and thereafter, third supplementary charge-sheet was filed against single accused person. There are total 15 accused persons and other 04 accused persons are absconding. He further submits that out of 11 accused persons against whom charge-sheet has been filed, presently, 9 accused persons have been granted bail. Cases of appellants are similar to those accused persons who have been granted bail. He further submits that main accused is Moi e nuddin@Raja Pathan, who has also been granted bail vide aforesaid order. He further submits that both the appellants are in jail for more than 5 months. Charge- sheet has also been filed against them and conclusion of trial would likely to take long time, hence, he prayed that on the ground of parity, both the appellants may be granted bail. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that notice was served to the complainant Prashant Meshram, through Jail Authority, District Wardha (Maharashtra), as the complainant Prashant Meshram is languishing in the aforesaid Jail. Despite 4 service of notice, no representation has been made on behalf of complainant and even also prior to previous dates of hearing notice was served to the brother of the victim, who had refused to take the notice. Learned State counsel opposed the aforesaid appeals and submit that having considered nature and gravity of the offence, both the appeals are liable to be rejected. 7. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and peruse the material available on record. 8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the cases, particularly considering the fact that main accused Moienuddin@Raja Pathan and other 8 accused persons have been granted bail, cases of both the appellants are also found to be like of those co-accused persons who have been granted bail, charge-sheet has already been filed and conclusion of trial would likely to take long time, and further both the appellants are resident of Dallirajhara, District Balod, hence, I feel inclined to grant regular bail to both the appellants. 9. Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed and it is directed that on each of appellants’ furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, they shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- a) they shall appear before the concerned Court as and when so directed unless exempted from appearance. 5 b) they 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 their bail. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ravi Mandavi