1 CGHC010233182026 2026:CGHC:29954 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1438 of 2026 Bajrang @ Jagdish Prasad Sahu Son Of Late Kangalu Ram Sahu, Aged About 66 Years Resident Of Village Bahtarai, P.S. Sarkanda, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh, Through- Station House Officer, Police Station Pathariya, AJAK Mungeli, District - Mungeli (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Shri Kishore Bhaduri, Senior Advocate with Shri B.L.Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Vivek Sharma, Panel Lawyer (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL) Order on Board 15/07/2026 1. The instant criminal appeal filed by the appellant under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, the Act, 1989) is for grant of regular bail to him, who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 122/2026 registered at Police Station – Pathariya, AJAK Mungeli (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(T) of the Act, 1989. 2. As per the prosecution’s case, on 15.05.2026, some unknown person has removed the flag of the trible community from the land bearing Kh.No.94/1 situated at village Lauda, P.H.No.07, Revenue Circle Pathariya, District Mungeli. Based upon the complaint by the Digitally signed by ALLENA ANJANI KUMAR Date: 2026.07.15 16:28:14 +0530 2 complainant, the present appellant was arrested by the Police and offence under the above sections has been registered against him. 3. By order dated 15.06.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge in Crime No. 122/2026, the bail application filed by the appellant has been rejected against which the appellant has filed this appeal. 4. Learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has not committed any offence and he is falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that as per the prosecution case, the disputed land belongs to the Government land and the eviction order has already been passed by the Naib Tahsildar, Pathariya on 16.12.2024. He further submits that as per the prosecution case, one flag was planted on the subject land, which was removed by the villagers and not the present appellant. He lastly submits that the appellant is in jail since 12.06.2026 and the charge-sheet has already been filed and since the trial is likely to take considerable time to be finalised; 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 for the State opposes the instant appeal for grant of regular bail. 6. With the aid of DLSA, Mungeli, the complainant is present and he has objection to grant of bail to the appellant. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 8. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case and considering the material available on record and the fact that the appellant is in custody since 12.06.2026 and the trial is likely to 3 take considerable time, without going into merits of the matter, this Court finds that this is a fit case, in which, the appellant should be granted bail. Accordingly, the present 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 appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Anjani