1 CGHC010232882026 2026:CGHC:30308 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1503 of 2026 1 - Dilharan Sahu Son Of Shankar Sahu Aged About 61 Years Residnet Of Village Padiyain, Police Station Pathariya, District - Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Pathariya, District - Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. T. K. Jha, Senior Advocate, along with Mr. Shubham Patel, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Rohitashav Singh, Dy. Govt. Advocate For Objector : Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 16/07/2026 1. The victim/complainant is present in person today along with his advocate and has objected to the grant of bail to the appellant. 2. This appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short “the SC/ST Act”) has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 14.05.2026 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Mungeli (C.G.) whereby the bail application filed by the appellant BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2026.07.17 16:08:26 +0530 2 under Section 483 of BNSS in connection with Crime No.193/2025 registered at Police Station Pathariya, District Mungeli (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 115(2), 109(1), 126(2), 296, 3(5) of BNS and Sections 3(2)(v) & 3(1)(r) (s) of the SC/ST Act has been rejected. 3. As per the prosecution case, on 10.09.2025, the complainant, Savita Ratre, lodged a written report at Police Station Pathariya stating that on the said date, her father-in-law/victim, Chandulal Ratre, had called the present appellant Dilharan Sahu and co- accused Milap @ Mithun Sahu to his house for repairing the electricity connection. At about 6:00 PM, the victim left the house along with the appellant and the co-accused. Thereafter, at about 9:00–10:00 PM, an unknown person informed the village Sarpanch over the telephone that the victim had been intercepted near Jareli, abused in filthy language, assaulted, and was lying on the roadside in an injured condition. Upon receiving the information, the complainant, accompanied by her family members, rushed to the spot, where they came to know that the victim had already been shifted to Pathariya Hospital by the 108 ambulance service. On the basis of the said written report, the present crime was registered against the appellant and the co- accused. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that there is an unexplained delay of five days in lodging the First Information Report. It is further submitted that there are material contradictions in the prosecution case. While the victim has stated that he was assaulted with an axe, the prosecution case alleges that the assault was committed with a stick/club. Learned counsel further submits that Ritesh Sahu (PW- 1), an eye-witness, has categorically deposed in paragraph 6 of his testimony that when he reached the spot, the victim was 3 conscious and, upon being asked about the incident, informed him that he had been hit by a vehicle. It is also argued that the victim Chandulal Ratre (PW-5) in paragraph 11 of his deposition, has made exaggerated statements, whereas in paragraph 13 he has admitted that he was under the influence of alcohol at the relevant time. It is lastly submitted that the appellant has been in judicial custody since 16.09.2025, the trial is likely to take some time to be finalized, and therefore, the appeal may be allowed and the appellant may be released on bail. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the bail application and submits that the First Information Report specifically names the present appellant and the co-accused, and the victim has consistently attributed the assault to both of them. It is further submitted that a club, used in the commission of the offence, alleged to have been seized from the appellant. He further submits that there is sufficient evidence available on record against the Appellant, therefore, at this stage, the Appellant may not be granted bail. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Objector/victim has also opposed the prayer for bail and has adopted the submissions advanced by the learned State counsel. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the depositions of the victim Chandulal Ratre (PW-5) as well as Ritesh Sahu (PW-1) and further taking into account that, out of 25 prosecution witnesses, only 7 witnesses have been examined, the appellant is in jail since 16.09.2025 and there is all possibility of the trial taking considerable time for its conclusion, this Court is of the opinion that prima facie, a case for grant of bail to the appellant is made out. 4 9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 14.05.2026 is set aside. It is directed that the appellant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court. The appellant is directed to appear before the trial Court on each and every date to be given to him by the said Court till completion of the trial. 10. Let a certified copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for necessary information. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Khatai