1 CGHC010204042026 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1338 of 2026 1 - Manoj Yadav S/o Ram Kewal Yadav Aged About 42 Years 2 - Piyush Yadav S/o Anuj Yadav Aged About 23 Years Both Residents of Village -Kotrahi, Police Chowki Wadrafnagar, P.S. Basantpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj C.G. ... Appellants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Chowki Wadrafnagar, Police Station- Police Station Basantpur, District -Balrampur -Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Respondent/ Non Applicant For Appellants : Shri Akath Kumar Yadav, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Varunendra Mishra, Panel Lawyer. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL) Order on Board 20/07/2026 1. The instant criminal appeal filed by the appellants 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 them, who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 62/2026 registered at Police Station – Basantpur, District Balarampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 115(2), 296, 351(2), 3(5) of the B.N.S. 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) of the Act, 1989. 2. As per the prosecution’s case, on 02.03.2026 the complainant called Digitally signed by ALLENA ANJANI KUMAR Date: 2026.07.20 16:51:46 +0530 2 the accused persons as nephew (Bhatija), enraged this, the accused persons abused him by taking his caste and assaulted him while threatening him to life. A complaint was lodged by the complainant in the Police Station Basantpur. Based upon the report by the complainant, offence under the above sections has been registered against the present appellant under Crime No. 62/2026 3. By order dated 12.05.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge in Crime No. 62/2026, the bail application filed by the appellants has been rejected against which the appellants have filed this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have not committed any offence and even the names of the appellants were not specifically mentioned in the written complaint, marked as Annexure A/2 and that, the written report was filed after 25 days of alleged incident. He further submits that the appellants were falsely implicated in the offece. He lastly submits that the appellants are in custody since 10.05.2026, and the trial is likely to take some considerable time to be finalised; therefore, it is prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the appellants may be released on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the appeal for grant of regular bail. 6. On 13.07.2026, the victim/complainant appeared through V.C. from the concerned DLSA and has raised objection to grant of bail to the appellants. 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 3 case and considering material available on record and the fact that the appellants are in custody since 10.05.2026 and the trial is likely to take considerable time, without going into merits of the matter, this Court finds that this is a fit case, in which, the appellants should be granted bail. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed. 9. It is directed that, in the event of the appellants executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- 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