1 2025:CGHC:61099 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2003 of 2025 Ramchandra @ Prafulla Sharma S/o Jaitlal Sharma Aged About 54 Years R/o Dabripara, Akaltari, P.S. Ratanpur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G). ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, P.S. Ratanpur Distt.- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For the appellant : Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate For the State : Mr. Surendra Dewangan, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 15/12/2025 1. This appeal is filed under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for grant of regular bail to the appellant as he has been arrested in Crime No. 47/2025 registered at P.S. Ratanpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 109, 3(5) of BNS and Section 3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. By impugned order dated 17.07.2025 passed by the learned trial Court in Special Case (Atrocities) No. 6/2025 (State of Chhattisgarh Vs Ramchandra Urf Praphull Sharma and another) ), the application filed by ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2025.12.16 14:17:25 +0530 2 the applicant for grant of regular bail has been rejected, which has been challenged in this appeal. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that a written complaint was filed by the complainant to the effect that that when he was at his home on 18.01.2025 at about 09.00 a.m., his uncle Rampal Tilak Raj came to his house on a bicycle in a bloody condition and called him, on which, he went and saw injured Rampal Tilak and on being asked his uncle the victim told that in the very morning he had gone to Bahra Khar Reservoir of the village to catch fish where due to to a dispute regarding illegal encroachment of government land, applicant Ramchandra alias Prafull Sharma along with his son/co-accused Mayank Sharma caught him with the intention of killing him and the applicant Ramchandra alias Prafull Sharma hit him on the head several times with an Axe (Tangia) and while trying to resist the assault, the victim got injured on his right hand and left shoulder and became unconscious and thinking him dead, the accused/applicant Ramchandra alias Prafull Sharma and co-accused Mayank Sharma ran away from the spot. On the basis of the above written complaint, offence was registered against the applicant/accused and Mayank Sharma and they were arrested. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no eye- witness to the incident and similarly placed accused Mayank Sharma has been granted bail by Supreme Court by order dated 12.11.2025 passed in Appeal/Diary No.54611 of 2025, therefore, on the ground of parity the present applicant may also be granted bail. He further submits that earlier the present applicant has been granted temporary bail by this Court for a period of 20 days for getting treatment by order dated 15.10.2025 and immediately after completion of the said period, he has surrendered before the trial Court on 06.11.2025 and did not misuse the liberty granted to him. He submits that the appellant is aged person and his one eye is 3 completely blind and there is infection in the other eye due to which the vision of another eye is also badly affected therefore he needs better treatment in the long run. He submits that the appellant is in jail since 19.01.2025 and the trial is likely to take time, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and supports the order of the trial Court. He further submits that specific allegation is attributed to the present applicant that he has assaulted the victim with a knife which was seized from the applicant and the victim is yet to be examined. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 7. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and the fact that the victim has not yet been examined, it is not a fit case to release the appellant on bail at this stage. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected. 8. However, looking to the custody period of the appellant and the victim has not yet been examined, treating the matter as exceptional case the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial as early as possible preferably within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 9. Registry shall send a copy of this order to the trial Court. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao