1 2026:CGHC:11075 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 344 of 2026 1 - Aakib Khan S/o Munawar Khan, Aged About 25 Years R/o Senduras P.S. Malkharoda Dist. Janjgir Champa C.G. 2 - Md. Shahrukh Khan S/o Shafi Khan Aged About 32 Years R/o Jaijaipur P.S. Jaijaipur Dist. Shakti (C.G.) ... Appellants. versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Jaijaipur, District Shakti C.G. --- Respondent For Appellants : Mr. Syed Ishhadil Ali, Advocate. For Respondent-State : Mr. Rishiraj Pithawa, Dy. GA. Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 03/03/2026 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 09.12.2025 (Annexure A-1), whereby appellants’ application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS for grant of bail has been rejected. 2. Appellants have been arrested on 09.12.2025 in connection with Crime No.101/2025 registered at Police Station -Jaijaipur, District 2 Shakti (C.G.), for offence punishable U/s 126, 296, 351(2), 115(2) read with Section 3(5) of BNS and Section 3-1(R-S) of the Act of 1989. 3. As per prosecution case, in brief, is that on 14.05.2025, while complainant was proceeding towards the Kanshigarh with his relatives at rented vehicle/car, at approximately 06:00 PM, near Jaijaipur Market, accused persons (appellant No.1/Akib Khan, Rajkumar Mishra & Kurais Khan) wrongfully restrained the vehicle/car of complainant and, thereafter, co-accused/Rajkumar Mishra intentionally insulted and humiliated the complainant by uttering caste-based derogatory and also used filthy and obscene language against the female members/relatives of complainant; said accused forcibly pulled the complainant out of the vehicle and physically assaulted him. Simultaneously, appellant No.1 and co- accused-Kuraish Khan caught hold of the complainant and applied force to his neck with intention of strangulating him, as a result of which, complainant experienced severe suffocation and was on the verge of losing consciousness. Complainant was rescued only due to the timely intervention of his mother and sisters and, thereafter, somehow they managed to reach Kanshigarh. Shortly, thereafter, two vehicles arrived at the said location and approximately ten persons alighted from the said vehicles and started assaulting the complainant with kicks, fists and belts; said persons also hurled obscene abuses against the mother and sisters of the Complainant and criminally intimidated him by issuing threats to cause his death. 3 Due to assault, complainant sustained injuries on his head and is suffering from persistent pain in his neck and right ear. Based on report lodged by complainant, FIR was registered against the appellants alongwith other co-accused persons. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellants have been falsely implicated in this case, they have not committed any offence as alleged against them. Appellant No.2 has not named in the FIR; there is no allegation against the appellants of insulting/humiliating the complainant on account of his caste, nor there is any assertion that appellants used any filthy or obscene language against him. Injury caused by the complainant is simple in nature. There is no any other previous criminal antecedent against the appellants, charge-sheet has been filed, conclusion of trial may take time, hence, looking to his detention period of the appellants, ie, since 09.12.2025, they may be released on bail. 5. Learned State Counsel opposing submission of counsel for the appellants and submits that there is specific allegation against the appellants of committing the alleged offence/crime, hence, they may not be released on bail. 6. Heard learned counsel for respective parties and perused the case diary. 7. Pursuant to order of this Court, on 28.02.2026 complainant appeared through virtual mode from the concerned DLSA and he raised objection in granting bail to the appellants. 4 8. Considering entire facts and circumstances of case, nature of allegations, submissions of counsel for the parties, particularly the fact that there is no allegation against the present appellants of insulting/humiliating the complainant on account of his caste, nor there is any assertion that appellants have used any filthy or obscene language against him, injury caused by the complainant is simple in nature, further considering that co-accused Kuraish Khan has been enlarged on bail by this Court in CRA No.440/2026, there is no any other previous criminal antecedent against the appellants, detention period of appellants, 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 appellants shall be released on regular bail upon their furnishing a bail bond in sum of Rs.10,000/- each with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court on the conditions that:- a) Appellants shall appear before trial Court regularly on each and every date, unless exempted from appearance. b) Appellants shall not, in any manner, tamper with the prosecution witnesses. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J/-