1 2025:CGHC:9912 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 219 of 2025 Pushpendra Sahu @ Raja Sahu S/o Late Keshav Ram Sahu Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Kachna, Out Post Birejhar, Police Station Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.) Presently Residing At Mahadev Ghat Raipura, District Raipur (C.G. ...Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Of Out Post Birejhar, Police Station Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.). --- Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate. For Respondent-State : Mr. Vivek Sharma, PL. Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 27/02/2025 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 08.01.2025 (Annexure A-1) passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Dhamtari, (CG), whereby appellant’s application filed under Section 483 of BNSS for grant of bail is rejected. 2. Appellant is in jail since 12.12.2024 in connection with Crime No.462/2024 registered at Out Post -Birejhar, Police Station -Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351 (2), 3(5), 109 (1) of BNS and Sections 3 (1) (द), 3(1) (घ), 3(2) (V क), 3(2) (v) of the Act of 1989. 2 3. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 02-11-2024 present appellant alongwith co-accused (Rahul @ Rekhraj Sahu) started abusing the complainant Dhananjay Tandon and his brother Prahlad Tandon in filthy languages and, thereafter, co-accused assaulted them by the hands and present appellant by means of sharp egged weapon, due to which, Prahlad suffered grievous injuries on his stomach and forehand, whereas complainant on his back. Based upon report, FIR was registered against the appellant and he has been arrested. 4. Learned counsel for appellant submits that appellant has been falsely implicated in this case, he has not committed any offence as alleged against him. Injuries suffered by the victims are simple in nature. Victims (Dhananjay and Prahlad) have examined before the trial Court and have not made any allegation against the present appellant. Co-accused has been enlarged on bail by the Court below. There is no any other previous criminal antecedent against the applicant. Applicant is in jail since 12.12.2024, charge-sheet has been filed, conclusion of trial may take time, hence, appellant may be released on bail. 5. Learned State Counsel opposing submission of counsel for the appellant and would submit there is specific allegation against the appellant, hence, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 6. Heard counsel for respective parties. 7. Victims (Dhananjay and Prahlad) appeared before this Court by virtual mode from the concerned DLSA and not raised any objection in granting bail to the appellant. 8. Considering entire facts and circumstances of case, nature of allegations, submission of counsel for the parties, the fact that co-accused has been enlarged on bail by the Court below, particularly the evidence of the 3 victims (Dhananjay and Prahlad), there is no any other previous criminal antecedent against the appellant, further considering that 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/-