1 2026:CGHC:27459 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 1394 of 2026 Sheikh Mohammed Junaid, Son Of Sheikh Mahammed Akhtar, Aged About 29 Years R/o- Turkapara, Chandni Chowk, Raigarh, Tehsil And District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh, Through- Station House Officer, City Kotwali, District- Raigarh (C.G.) --- Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent-State : Ms. Supriya Upasane, GA Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 03/07/2026 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 order dated 07.05.2026 passed by learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Raigarh, District Raigarh (CG) in Crime No.211/2026, whereby appellant's application for grant of bail is rejected. 2. Appellant is in jail since 22.04.2026 in connection with Crime No.211/2026 registered at Police Station – City Kotwali, District Raigarh VASANT KUMAR Digitally signed by VASANT KUMAR Date: 2026.07.03 16:08:58 +0530 2 (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 190, 191(2), 191(3), 296, 351(2), 115(2), 109(1) of BNS and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. As per case of prosecution, on 21.04.2026, the complainant along with other neighboring persons went to Koshtapara Dharamshala to attend a wedding ceremony and when they were returning in motorcycle and when they reached near Shani Mandir, a vehicle (Tata Ace) was stationed in front of them in the main road in which the appellant and other person boarded. Then the complainant went there and told to park his vehicle in the side to avoid trouble then the appellant and his companion abused and assaulted the complainant with hands, fists and sticks. On the basis of said complaint, an FIR was registered against the appellant and other persons. 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. He further submits that name of the appellant has not mentioned in the FIR and further there was dispute arisen between the parties with regard to park the vehicle and the appellant was not involved in the said offence. He further submits that as per the FIR, there was no deadly weapon was used and the appellant is in jail since 22.04.2026, conclusion of trial may take time, hence, appellant may be released on bail. 5. Learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant. 6. Pursuant to order dated 18.06.2026, victim appeared before this Court 3 through virtual mode from the DLSA Raigarh. On being asked, he raised objection for grant of bail to the appellant. 7. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegation leveled against the appellant, the detention period of the appellant, and that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the present is a fit case for grant of bail to the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. 9. It is directed that, in the event of the appellant executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (i) he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court, (ii) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, and (iii) he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (iv) he shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Vasant