1 2026:CGHC:7932 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 59 of 2026 Milap Sahu @ Mithun Sahu S/o Kewal Prasad Aged About 39 Years R/o Village- Padiyain, P.S.- Pathariya, District- Mungeli (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S.- Ajak P.S. Mungeli, District- Mungeli (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Sahdev Yadav, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 12/02/2026 1. The victim has appeared virtually from concerned DLSA and recorded ‘objection’ in granting bail to the applicant. 2. This appeal is filed under Section 14-A (2) of the SCST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for grant of regular bail to the appellant as he is arrested in connection with crime number 193/2025 registered at police station AJAK, District Mungeli (C.G.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 296, 115 (2), 126(2), 109(1), 3(5) of BNS and Sections 3 (2)(v) & 3 (1)(r)(s) of SCST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. The Trial Court vide order dated 17.11.2025, rejected the bail application of the appellant filed under Section 483 of BNSS against which this present appeal has been preferred by the appellant. 3. As per case of the prosecution, on 10.09.2025 the complainant Savita Ratre submitted a written report at Police Station Pathariya stating that on the said date her father-in-law/victim had called Dilharan Sahu (co-accused) and the applicant Milap alias Mithun Sahu of their village to his house for repairing the SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2026.02.13 17:31:46 +0530 2 electricity connection. Thereafter, at about 6:00 PM, her father- in-law left the house along with Dilharan Sahu and Milap Sahu. At about 9:00–10:00 PM, an unknown person informed the Sarpanch over the phone that the victim had been stopped on the way near Jareli, abused in filthy language, and assaulted, and that he was lying there in an injured condition. Upon receiving the information, the complainant along with her family members went to the spot, where it was found that the victim had already been taken by 108 ambulance to Pathariya Hospital. Based on above, on the report of the complainant, offence was registered against the Appellant. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submit that nothing has been seized from the appellant. He has not assaulted the victim. There is no criminal antecedent of the Appellant. The appellant is in jail since 16.09.2025 and the trial is likely to take some time to be finalized, therefore, it is prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the appellant may be released on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the State opposes the bail application and submits that the victim was assaulted by a club which was seized from co-accused Dilharan. Due to injuries sustained by the victim, he was admitted in a hospital for about 24 days. There is sufficient evidence available on record against the Appellant. Therefore, at this stage, the Appellant may not be granted bail. 6. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence collected by the prosecution against the appellant, without commenting on merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it would not be appropriate to release the appellant on bail. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham