1 CGHC010150932026 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1067 of 2026 Ramprasad Tanwar S/o Motilal Tanwar Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Bhawanipur, Police Station Bhojpur, District Rajgarh, M.P. ---Applicant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Gandhinagar, District Surguja (C.G.) --- Respondent CRA No. 1035 of 2026 Kamlesh Tanwar S/o Amar Singh, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Village Bedkapura, Police Station And District Rajgarh, M.P. (Wrongly Mentioned As Belakapura In Impugned Order Dated 27-03-2026) --- Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Gandhinagar, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent CRA No. 1397 of 2026 Lalchand Tanwar S/o Madan Lal Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Noikala, P.S. Balta District- Jalawar (Rajasthan) (Note : State Name Is Wrongly Mentioned In Impugned Order) ---Appellant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, P.S. Gandhinagar District- Surguja Chhattisgarh, --- Respondent For Appellants – Kamlesh Tanwar & Ramprasad Tanwar : Shri Shikhar Shukla, Advocate. For Appellant – Lalchand Tanwar : Shri Navneet Kumar Yadav, Advocate For Respondent / State : Shri Afroj Khan, Panel Lawyer. Digitally signed by ALLENA ANJANI KUMAR Date: 2026.07.15 16:28:14 +0530 2 (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL) Order on Board 15/07/2026 1. Since all the above criminal appeals arose out of the Crime No.30/2026 registered at Police Station Gandhinagar, District Surguja (C.G.), they are being heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. The instant criminal appeals filed by the above appellants under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, the Act, 1989) are for grant of regular bail to them, who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 30/2026 registered at Police Station – Gandhinagar, District Surguja (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 126 (2), 140(2) & 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (for short, the B.N.S. 2023) and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, 1989. 3. As per the prosecution’s case, on 15.01.2026 at about 7:30 pm, the prosecutrix was allegedly abducted by the appellant – Ramprasad Tanwar along with his companions from her rented house at Ambikapur, while she was returning from work and thereafter, the accused persons abused her with caste-related remarks during the incident. On receiving such information, one Hiralal Sahu, the owner of the victim reported the matter to the Police Station Gandhinagar and the Police recovered the prosecutrix at Manendragarh on the same day. Based upon the report by the complainant Hiralal Sahu, the offence under the above sections has been registered against the present appellants. 4. By impugned orders dated 15.05.2026 & 27.03.2026 passed by the 3 learned Special Judge, the bail applications filed by the appellants have been rejected against which the appellants have filed the instant appeals. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant – Ramprasad Tanwar submits that the victim is aged about 38 years old and she had married with the appellant – Ramprasad Tanwar, as per the agreement. In Comprehensive Family Card, the victim was added as the family member of the appellant Ramprasad Tanwar and in copy of Aadhar Card also, her address was shown to be the address of the said appellant and in addition thereto, joint photograph of the appellant- Ramprasad and the victim was annexed with the part of agreement wherein it was shown that they were living together for the last 4 years as husband and wife. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the appellant – Kamlesh Tanwar and Lalchand Tanwar are also relatives of the appellant – Ramprasad Tanwar and both of them were falsely implicated in the case despite the appellant – Ramprasad Tanwar is the husband of the victim. They further submit that the appellants are in jail since 16.01.2026 and that charge sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take considerable time to be finalised; therefore, it is prayed that the appeals may be allowed and the appellants may be released on bail. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the instant appeals for grant of bail to the appellants. 7. With the aid of D.L.S.A. Ambikapur, victim is present and raised objection with regard to grant of bail to the present applicants. 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused 4 the case diary. 9. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case and considering the material available on record and the fact that the appellants are in jail since 16.01.2026 and the trial is likely to take considerable time, without going into merits of the matter, I am inclined to grant bail to the present appellants. Accordingly, the present appeals are allowed. 10. It is directed that, in the event of the appellants – Ramprasad Tanwar, Kamlesh Tanwar and Lalchand Tanwar executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety each to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, they shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (i) they 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) they shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial. Sd/- (RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL) JUDGE Anjani