1 2025:CGHC:58407 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2450 of 2025 Pintu Alias Chaturgun Yadav S/o Vishundhari Yadav Aged About 45 Years R/o Bheski, Police Outpust Bariyon, P.S. Rajpur, Distt. Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ...Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Rajpur, Distt. Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Sahil Singh, Advocate. For Respondent-State : Mr. Ajit Singh, GA. For Complainant : Mr. K Rohan, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 02/12/2025 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 06.11.2025 (Annexure A-1) passed by learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Balrampur, (CG) whereby appellant’s application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS for grant of bail is rejected. 2 2. Appellant is in jail since 19.05.2025 in connection with Crime No. 103/2025 registered at Police Station -Rajpur, Distt. Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh, for the offence punishable under Sections 108 & 3(5) of BNS and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act of 1989. 3. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that land of Zubaro Bai was registered in a joint account with others. Zubaro Bai's son is complainant Santram and her husband Bhaira Ram (deceased) was a Pahadi Korwa. Co-accused persons Vinod Kumar Agarwal and Praveen Agarwal fraudulently and deceitfully got the land of Zubaro Bai registered in the name of Shivaram on 18.11.2024 without partition, in respect of which no money was given to Zubaro Bai. On the written complaint of Zubaro Bai and Santram, Police registered Crime No.90/2025 on 23.04.2025 for offences punishable under Sections 318, 338, 336, 340, 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. On the death of Bhaira Ram on 22.04.2025, on the information of his son Santram, morgue was registered and enquiry was conducted. On the second written complaint of complainant Santram and after Morgue enquiry, on 06.05.2025, Crime No.103/2025 under Sections 108 and 3(5) of BNS was registered against the appellant and 06 other co-accused persons at Police Station Rajpur, in which, Section 3(2)(v) of the SCST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was also added in the charge sheet. The said crime was registered on the basis of written complaint of Santram and also on the basis that in the Morgue enquiry it was found that the appellant and co-accused persons used to tell Bhaira Ram that now the land belongs to them 3 and he should run away and was harassed by threatening to beat him, due to which, Bhaira Ram committed suicide by hanging himself in intervening night of 21/22 April 2025. Hence, this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that appellant has been falsely implicated in this case, he has not committed any offence as alleged against him. There is no evidence/material available to connect the appellant in crime in question. There is no relation of appellant with property in question. There is also neither any relation of present appellant with main accused persons (Vinod and Praveen Agrawal). Present appellant is not an accused in Crime No.90/2025 registered at Police Station Rajpur, wherein the main accused persons in the present case are the accused persons. Present appellant has not abetted the deceased to commit suicide, hence, the ingredient of Section 108 of the BNS is not made out against the appellant. FIR does not disclose that the present appellant in any manner knew the deceased and aware about his caste. Vide order dated 28.10.2025, co-accused (Sudama @ Babulal Shrivastava) has been granted bail by this Court in CRA No.2145/2025. There is no any other previous criminal antecedent against the appellant, he is in jail since 19.05.2025, charge-sheet has been filed, conclusion of trial may take time as out of 19 witnesses, only 07 witnesses have been examined before the trial Court till date, hence, he prayed that appellant may be released on bail. 5. Learned State Counsel opposing the appeal of the appellant. 4 6. Learned counsel for the Complainant raised no objection in allowing the appeal of the appellant. 7. Heard counsel for respective parties. 8. Considering entire facts and circumstances of case, nature of allegations, submissions of counsel for the parties, the fact that co- accused (Sudama @ Babulal Shrivastava) has been granted bail by this Court in CRA No.2145/2025, 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/-