1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2238 of 2025 1 - Bhupendra Kishor Vaishnav S/o Dwarika Das Vaishnav Aged About 46 Years R/o Shyama Prasad Road, Kharsiya, Police Station - Kharsiya, District - Raigarh (C.G.) (As Per The Impugned Order Dated 16.09.2025) ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station - Kharsiya, District - Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Dharmesh Srivastava, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 10/11/2025 1. This appeal is filed under Section 14-A(2) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for grant of regular bail to the appellant as he is arrested in connection with crime number 105/2023 registered at police station Kharsiya, District Raigarh (C.G.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 384, 294 of IPC and Section 3(1) (s) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. HEERA LAL SAHU Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.11.10 16:20:39 +0530 2 2. The first bail application of the appellant was dismissed on merit on 04.07.2025 in CRA No. 1029/2025 and the trial Court was directed to expedite the trial. 3. As per the case of the prosecution, it is alleged that on 27.01.2023, the appellant met with the complainant and illegally demanded a sum of Rs. 50,000 in respect of entrusting of the case and threatened to make the video viral if the amount was not paid. It is also alleged that the appellant abused the victim/complainant by case name in a public place. On report being lodged in this regard, offence was registered against the present appellant. 4. By order dated 16.09.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge in Crime No. 105/2023, the second bail application filed by the appellant has been rejected against which the appellant has filed this appeal. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that the material witnesses have been examined before the trial Court. He also submits that the appellant is in jail since 13.02.2025, and the trial is likely to take considerable time to be finalised; therefore, it is prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the appellant may be released on bail. 6. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the State opposes the bail application and submits that there are as many as 24 previous criminal records against the appellant and there is sufficient evidence available on record against the Appellant and the victim has supported the case of the prosecution, therefore, at this stage, the Appellant may not be granted bail. 3 7. No one appeared on behalf of the victim, though notice has been served. 8. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case that only 5 witnesses including the victim out of 15 witnesses have been examined till date, the appellant is in jail since 13.02.2025 and the fact that the trial is likely to take some time to be finalised, without further commenting on other merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it would be appropriate to release the appellant on bail. 10.Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 16.09.2025 passed by the learned Trial Court is set- aside. 11.It is directed that the appellant shall be released on bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one solvent surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the said Court as and when directed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H.L. Sahu