1 / 5 2025:CGHC:55410 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1727 of 2025 Triveni Yadav S/o Vanshpati Yadav, Aged About 37 Years (Wrongly Mention As 51 Years In Impugned Order), R/o Village- Chandwahi, P.S. Bahri, District- Sidhi, (M.P.) ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- P.S.- Taregaon Jangle, District- Kabirdham C.G. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate For State /Respondent : Mr. Ajit Singh, GA (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 13/11/2025 1. The instant appeal under Section 14-A (2) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 17/07/2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST) (Atrocities) Kabirdham, District Kabirdham, C.G. in Special Case No.273/2025 whereby the ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.11.14 15:05:20 +0530 2 / 5 application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. of the appellant has been rejected. 2. The appellant has preferred this appeal for grant of regular bail as he is arrested on 25/06/2025 in connection with Crime No.08/2017 registered in Police Station Taregaon Jangle, District Kabirdham, C.G. for offence punishable under sections 304, 302 of IPC and Section 3(2) (v) of S.T./S.C. Act. 3. As per the prosecution case, on 22/03/2017 the appellant has taken Parvati Bai on his truck bearing Registration No.C.G. 09 F 6786 to drop her to her doorsteps but due to mechanical issues in truck he stopped the truck and subsequently when Parvati Bai was going towards her house with her husband & Ramabai on motorcycle, they were dashed from backside by the truck, resulting in death of Parvati Bai. Thereafter, an FIR was registered under Section 304 of IPC against the appellant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the husband of the deceased has filed a claim petition before the Claims Tribunal at Kabirdham and an amount of Rs.8,76,400/- has been awarded to him. He would next contend that the accident has been tried to give the colour of murder just in order to bargain more. He would next contend that it is a case of rash and negligent driving of the Driver and not a case of culpable homicide or murder of the deceased. He would lastly contend that the appellant is in jail since 25/06/2025, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail. 3 / 5 5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail. 6. The complainant appeared before this Court through video conferencing from DLSA Kabirdham on 06/10/2025 and submitted that he has no objection for grant of bail to the appellant. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 8. On perusal of the award, I have found that the Claimants filed the claim petition alleging that the accused / appellant while Driving the Truck bearing Registration No.C.G. 09 F 6786 in a rash and negligent manner dashed the same. In case of culpable homicide or murder intention or knowledge is necessary. Therefore, considering the entire facts & circumstances of the case, I am inclined to release the appellant on bail. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set-aside. 10. Let appellant Triveni Yadav, involved in Crime No.08/17, under Sections 304, 302 of IPC and Section 3(2) (v) of the S.T./S.C. Act, Police Station Taregaon Jangle, District Kabirdham, C.G., be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with one surety in like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial Court to treat it as 4 / 5 abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) the appellant shall remain present before the trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial Court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. (iii) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS, 2023 is issued and the appellant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. (iv) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS 2023. If in the opinion of the trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against them in accordance with law. 11. Office is directed to sent a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. 5 / 5 12. It is made clear that the observation made in this order are only with respect to the grant of bail only and the trial Court shall not be influenced by the observation made in this order and shall proceed in accordance with law on its own merits. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu