1 / 4 2025:CGHC:58180 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2221 of 2025 1 - Harinarayan S/o Mangru Aged About 55 Years 2 - Rampyare S/o Harinarayan Aged About 30 Years 3 - Mukhlal S/o Late Ghura Saw Aged About 64 Years 4 - Dayashankar S/o Mukhlal Aged About 43 Years 5 - Nandev S/o Late Ghura Aged About 52 Years 6 - Satan Dev S/o Ramnath Aged About 50 Years 7 - Balkeshwar S/o Late Ghurasaw Aged About 70 Years 8 - Vinad Kumar S/o Balkeshwar Aged About 30 Years 9 - Nandlal S/o Late Ghurasaw Aged About 53 Years 10 - Lallan Prasad S/o Late Manmohan Aged About 56 Years 11 - Arvind Kumar S/o Lallan Prasad Aged About 34 Years 12 - Manoj S/o Mukhlan Aged About 34 Years 13 - Ramnarayan S/o Mangru Aged About 52 Years 14 - Sunil Kumar S/o Ramnarayan Aged About 35 Years All R/o Village Sago Bandh, P.S. Babhni, District Sonbhadra (U.P.) 15 - Ramlakhan Gupta S/o Late Manmohan Aged About 65 Years 16 - Vikas Nand S/o Lallan Aged About 28 Years 17 - Mukhlal S/o Late Manmohan Aged About 61 Years ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.12.04 11:00:17 +0530 2 / 4 Appellants No. 15, 16 and 17 all R/o Village - Talkeshwarpur, P.S. - Sanawal, District - Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, P.S. Sanawal, District - Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellants : Mr. Suresh Kumar Verma, Advocate For State /Respondent : Mr. Ajit Singh, GA along with Ms. Priya Sharma, Panel Lawyer For Complainant : Mr. Sunil Tripathi, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 01/12/2025 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 15/09/2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balrampur Place Ramanujganj, C.G. in Bail Application No.503/2025 whereby the application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. of the appellants has been rejected. 2. The appellants have preferred this appeal for grant of regular bail as they are arrested in connection with Crime No.46/2025 registered in Police Station Sanwal, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, C.G. for offence punishable under sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 296, 351(2), 115(2), 109(1) of BNS 2023 and under Sections 3 (1) (R) (S) (G) & 3 (2-5) of the SC ST Act. 3 / 4 3. As per the prosecution case, the victim/complainant Ramsai Gond, lodged a report alleging that on 11/08/2025 at about 9 AM the complainant was doing the cultivation work in the agricultural field at that time the accused persons more than 20 in number came armed with club, axe, stick and restrained the complainant from doing work and hurled filthy abuses and assaulted him and stated that the field belong to them and also threatened to kill him. Thereafter, on the basis of the same an FIR was registered and the appellant was arrested. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that they have not abused the complainant party whereas on the contrary the complainant assaulted the appellants for which an FIR was lodged in Crime No.47/2025. He would next contend that the land in question belongs of the appellants. He would lastly contend that the appellants are lodged in jail and the trial will take some more time, therefore, the appellants may be enlarged on bail. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail, and would submit that the present appellants were present on the spot at the time of incident and have participated in the assault. 6. Learned counsel for the complainant opposes the prayer for grant of bail. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 8. Considering the entire facts & circumstances of the case and the role played by the appellants as they were present on the spot at the time of 4 / 4 incident further as such, there is direct involvement of the present appellants in the assault. Thus, considering the same and the role played by the appellants as they actively participated in the assault, I am not inclined to allow this appeal and release the appellants on bail. 9. Accordingly, the instant CRA is dismissed. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu