1 / 5 2025:CGHC:58173 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2412 of 2025 Manish Madhariya S/o Roshan Lal Madhariya Aged About 36 Years R/o Purani Basti Village Dhaba, P.S. Bori District- Durg (C.G.) ... Appellant versus The State of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. Arakshi Kendra Bori District- Durg Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate For State /Respondent : Ms. Nupur Trivedi, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 01/12/2025 1. The instant appeal under Section 14-A (II) 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 11/11/2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST) (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, District Durg, (C.G.) in Spl. C. SCST No.3091/2025 whereby the application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. of the appellant has been rejected. ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.12.03 16:35:27 +0530 2 / 5 2. The appellant has preferred this appeal for grant of regular bail as he is arrested in connection with Crime No.77/2025 registered in Police Station Bori, District Durg, C.G. for offence punishable under sections 296, 351(2), 115(2), 3(5) of BNS and Section 3 (1) (r) (s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. As per the prosecution case, the complainant Chandra Prakash Shivare filed a complaint before the Food Department, Durg, with regard to sell of sugar on a high price by the Society. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint the Food Inspector on 16/06/2025 came to the village and during enquiry in the Gram Panchayat Bhavan the complainant was also called and the investigation was carried out and on that date one co- accused Sukalu Yadav, Ingendra Sahu beaten the complainant being enraged with the complaint made and the present appellant abused him regarding cast and the one co-accused Manthan Verma also beaten the complainant whereby he received serious injuries over the back, cheek, left leg and right elbow. Thereafter, the complainant lodged a report in the police station and on the basis of the same the co-accused and the appellant were arrested. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there are four accused in the present case and out of that 03 accused persons have been granted bail by the learned trial Court. He would next contend that the offence under the SC ST act is not made out against the appellant as the alleged incident took place in the Panchayat Room and even in the FIR the allegations for the offence under the SC & ST act is not mentioned. 3 / 5 He would next contend that there is delay of 04 days in lodging the FIR and no plausible explanation has been given with regard to delay. He would lastly contend that the appellant is in jail since 08/11/2025 and the trial will take some more time, therefore, the appellant may be enlarged on bail. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail. 6. The complainant appeared through video conferencing from DLSA, Durg and he objected to grant of bail to the appellant. 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 fact that the co-accused persons have been enlarged on bail by the trial Court and the looking to the detention period of the appellant as he is lodged in jail since 08/11/2025, this Court is of the opinion that since it will take time to conclude the trial, therefore, looking to 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 Manish Madhariya, involved in Crime No.77/2025 registered in Police Station Bori, District Durg, C.G. for offence punishable under sections 296, 351(2), 115(2), 3(5) of BNS and Section 3 (1) (r) (s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with one surety in like 4 / 5 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 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 applicant 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 5 / 5 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. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu