1 2025:CGHC:60061 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2544 of 2025 Praveen Agrawal S/o Jogiram Agrawal Aged About 45 Years R/o Mahuwapara Main Road, Rajpur, Police Station Rajpur, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj C.G. --- Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Rajpur, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj C.G. --- Respondent Along with CRA No. 2549 of 2025 Vinod Kumar Agrawal S/o Jogiram Agrawal Aged About 50 Years R/o Mahuwapara Main Road, Rajpur, Police Station Rajpur, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh ---Appellant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Rajpur, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Surendra Singh, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. UKS Chandel, Dy. Advocate General For Complainant : Mr. K. Rohan, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 10.12.2025 1. Since these two criminal appeals have arisen out of the same Crime No.103/2025 registered at Police Station Rajpur, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 108, 3(5) of BNS and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short "the SC/ST Act") RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 seeking for grant of anticipatory bail, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The appellant has preferred these Second Criminal Appeals under Section 14-A(1) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2005 for setting aside of order dated 17.11.2025 passed by the Special Judge [Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act], Balrampur, Place Ramanujganj (C.G.) in Bail Application No.624/2025 and 625/2025, whereby the anticipatory bail of the appellants were rejected by the trial Court in connection with Crime No. 103/2025, registered at Police Station Rajpur, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) for the offences under Sections 108, 3(5) of BNS and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. The first criminal appeals under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act filed by the appellants were dismissed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.07.2025 passed in CRA Nos. 1115/2025 and 1144/2025 on merits. 4. The facts of the case, in brief, are that one Shivram Nagesia purchased a plot of land bearing Khasra Nos. 210, 213/2, 215, 240/10, 241/1, 245, Area 0.656, 0.097, 0.150, 1.259, 0.172, 0.134 Hectares. The sale-deed was executed on 18.11.2024 between Zubaro Bai (seller) and Shivram Nagesia (purchaser) upon consideration of Rs.14 Lakhs. The said property was a joint property of Zubaro Bai and her family members. The family members had given a consent letter to Zubaro Bai for sale of the property. After the sale, a dispute arose among the family members of Zubaro Bai for the amount of sale consideration being not adequate as per the market value of the 3 property. Consequently, Santram, Son of Zubaro Bai lodged an FIR on behalf of other family members against the appellant on 23.04.2025 at Police Station Naya Rajpur, District Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh bearing FIR No.90 of 2025 for offences under Sections 318, 336, 338, 340 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 5. Bhaira Ram (deceased) is the husband of Zubaro Bai. He committed suicide by hanging on the night intervening 21-22.04.2025. Santram lodged a morgue on 22.04.2025 regarding the factum of suicide by his father. Subsequently, on a written complaint by Santram, Crime No.103 of 2025 was registered at Police Station Naya Rajpur, District Balrampur for offences under Sections 108, 3(5), Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the appellant and five others. It was the prosecution case that as the appellant and the co-accused were harassing the deceased to give possession of the property sold by Zubaro Bai, Bhaira Ram committed suicide on that account. Hence, this appeals. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the ground for the grant of second anticipatory bail to the appellants is concerned, the evidence of Santram PW-1 has been recorded by the trial Court and the appellants have not been involved in the commission of suicide by the father of the complainant Santram PW-1 as after the sale of the property the co-accused Pintu Yadav, Raju Kaushik, Sudama and Rajendra Minj used to threaten the deceased Bhaira Ram, who was the husband of Zubaro Bai, on account of which the deceased 4 committed suicide, and he has not stated about the involvement of the appellants in the present case. Similarly, Munna Korwa (PW-6) and Lohra Korwa (PW-7) have also stated that they have no knowledge under which circumstances the deceased committed suicide. It is also submitted that there are 10 more witnesses remained to be examined at the trial Court who are formal witnesses. It is also submitted that the co-accused persons namely Dillip Tigga and Sudama @ Babulal Shrivastava have been granted regular bail by this Court vide orders dated dated 19.09.2025 and 28.10.2025 passed in CRA Nos.1798/2025 and 2145/2025. Hence, there appears to be no evidence against the appellants showing the involvement in the present case, therefore, they be enlarged on anticipatory bail by this Court. 7. Learned counsel for the Complainant vehemently opposed the above submission of counsel for the appellants and submitted that beside these two appellants, a total of 05 accused persons are involved in the present Crime No.103/2025, namely, Sudama; Raju Kaushik, Rajendra Minj, Pintu Yadav and Dilip Tigga, and they were arrested and the appellants are said to have been absconding since the date of filing of FIR, and the charge-sheet also been filed as the absconders before the trial Court, thus, the appellants who are absconding in the present case cannot get the benefit of anticipatory bail on the ground that 10 prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined by the trial Court. 8. It is further submitted that learned counsel for the appellants that other case which was registered i.e. Crime No.90/2025 lodged by Santram against the appellants and other accused persons under Sections 318, 336, 338, 340 and 3(5) of the BNS and Section 3(2)(v) of SC & ST 5 (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and only the appellants Vinod Agrawal and Praveen Agrawal are the only two accused who are also accused in Crime No.103/2025. Furthermore, the said FIR bearing Crime No.90/2025 was quashed by the Division Bench of this Court in WPCR Nos. 540/2025 and 542/2025 on 04.10.2025. It is also submitted that the matter has been compromised between the parties, hence, the appellants be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 9. On the other hand the learned State counsel opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that that there are 6 other criminal cases registered against appellant Praveen Agarwal and 9 criminal cases registered against appellant Vinod Kumar Agarwal. Furthermore, the appellants have not participated in the trial as they are absconding since the date of registration of FIR, and the chargesheet has been submitted against them as absconders. It is submitted that the evidence recorded by the prosecution witnesses goes to show that out of 17 prosecution witnesses only 7 have been recorded and 10 witnesses are yet to be recorded. It is submitted that against the bail rejection order dated 01.07.2025 in CRA Nos. 1115/2025 and 1144/2025, the appellants preferred SLP (Crl) Nos. 11708/2025 and 11429/2025 before the Hon’ble Apex Court and as the prayer made by the appellants to withdraw the same, the Hon’ble Apex Court has dismissed both of them vide orders dated 11.08.2025 and 07.08.2025. The appellants have filed bail application under Sections 482 of BNSS before preferring the instant appeals before the trial Court, and trial Court has not rejected the anticipatory bail application of the appellants on merits, but rejected the same on account of non- 6 maintainability, as in view of Section 18 of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the anticipatory bail application is not maintainable. 10. Heard both the parties and perused the case diary with utmost circumspection. 11. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties, and upon a careful scrutiny of the material available on record, it transpires that the appellants have been continuously absconding since the date of registration of FIR in Crime No.103/2025 and have not subjected themselves to the process of law, as a consequence whereof the charge-sheet has been filed against them showing them as absconders. The conduct of the appellants in evading arrest and not participating in the trial disentitles them from claiming any discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. The contention that certain prosecution witnesses, including PW-1 Santram, PW-6 Munna Korwa and PW-7 Lohra Korwa, have not specifically attributed any overt act to the appellants does not advance their case at this stage, as they have not participated in the trial which proceeded against the co-accused persons who were arrested and granted bail. It is relevent to point out that the evidence which has been adduced by the prosecution against the co-accused persons agaisnt whom the trial is under progress, the appellants who are the absconders cannot take benefit of the same. The grant of regular bail to the co-accused persons Dillip Tigga and Sudama @ Babulal Shrivastava is clearly distinguishable, as they were arrested, remained in custody, and thereafter enlarged on regular bail, whereas the present appellants have remained absconding and are seeking anticipatory bail, which stands on an entirely different footing. Further, the criminal 7 antecedents of the appellants, namely the existence of multiple other criminal cases against appellant Praveen Agarwal and appellant Vinod Kumar Agarwal, also weigh heavily against them. Importantly, the statutory bar contained under Section 18 of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act expressly excludes the applicability of Section 438 of the CrPC/482 of BNSS in cases involving offences under the said Act, and the appellants have failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstances warranting deviation from the said embargo. The earlier rejection of their bail applications, the withdrawal and dismissal of their SLPs by the Hon’ble Apex Court, and their failure to avail appropriate remedies in accordance with law further reinforce the conclusion that the present appeals are an abuse of the process of Court. In view of the aforesaid facts, circumstances, and the consistent opposition raised by the learned State counsel and the learned counsel for the complainant, this Court finds no ground to enlarge the appellants on anticipatory bail in these cases. 12. Accordingly, CRA No. 2544/2025 and CRA No. 2549/2025 filed for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellants who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 103/2025, registered at Police Station Rajpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) for the offences under Sections 108, 3(5) of BNS and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, are hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar