1 CGHC010295522026 2026:CGHC:38762 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1935 of 2026 Raju Kaushik @ Dharampal S/o Divaram Kaushik Aged About 35 Years (Father Name - Divam Wrongly Mentioned In Impugned Order) R/o Bada Police Chowki - Bariyo, P. S. - Rajpur District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Rajpur, District Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.) Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Rishabh Gupta, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Ghanshyam Kashyap, Deputy G.A. For Objector/Complainant : Mr. K. Rohan, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board 01/09/2026 1. The present appeal has been preferred under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'the Atrocities Act'), against the order dated 08.07.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act), Balrampur, sitting at Ramanujganj (C.G.), in Special Sessions Case No. 28/2025 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Dilip Tigga and others), whereby the regular bail application under VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.09.08 15:36:35 +0530 2 Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 preferred by the appellant has been rejected. 2. The appellant is claiming regular bail, who has been arrested on 06.07.2026 in connection with Crime No. 103/2025, registered at Police Station Naya Rajpur, District Balrampur for the offence under Sections 108 and 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act. 3. This is the first application filed by the appellant under Section 483 of BNSS. Earlier his anticipatory bail application has been rejected by coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 01.07.2025, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1007 of 2025. Thereafter, the second application for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant has again rejected on 10.04.2026 by this court in Criminal Appeal No. 708 of 2026. Thereafter, the appellant has been arrested on 06.07.2026 and filed his regular bail application before the learned trial Court which has been rejected vide order dated 08.07.2026 and then the present criminal appeal has been filed. 4. The case of the prosecution is that, the land belonging to Zubaro Bai was recorded jointly in the names of other family members. The complainant, Santram, is the son of Zubaro Bai and her deceased husband, Bhaira Ram, who belonged to the Pahadi Korwa community. It is alleged that co-accused Vinod Kumar Agrawal and Praveen Agrawal, by fraudulent and deceitful means, got the land belonging to Zubaro Bai registered in the name of Shivaram on 18.11.2024, without any partition having taken place and without payment of any consideration to Zubaro Bai. 3 5. On the basis of a written complaint submitted by Zubaro Bai and Santram, son of late Bhaira Ram, Crime No.90/2025 was registered on 23.04.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 318, 338, 336, 340 and 3(5) of the BNS. Thereafter, Bhaira Ram died on 22.04.2025. On the information furnished by his son, Santram, a merg intimation was registered and an enquiry was conducted. Subsequently, on the basis of a second written complaint submitted by Santram and the findings recorded during the merg enquiry, Crime No.103/2025 was registered on 06.05.2025 at Police Station New Rajpur against the present appellant and other co-accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 108 and 3(5) of the BNS. Subsequently, Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act was also added. The appellant has been arrested on 06.07.2026 and then he is claiming regular bail. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant is innocent and has not committed any offence. No offence against the appellant as alleged is prima facie made out. The allegations required for the offence under the Atrocity Act are completely missing. Further, there is a lack of ingredients of Section 107 of the IPC to prima facie attract the offence of abetment to commit suicide. There is no instigation to the deceased by the present appellant, and even by his conduct, the requirement of the offence is missing. There is no suicidal note left by the deceased. The FIR was lodged about 15 days after the incident by the son of the deceased. He would also submit that in the earlier FIR in which the allegation of cheating was levelled, a compromise between the accused persons and the complainant had taken place, and on the basis of the compromise, 4 the FIR has been quashed vide order dated 14.10.2025 passed by Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(CR) No. 540/2025. He would further submit that charge sheet has already been filed, and out of 16 witnesses, 09 witnesses have been examined and they have not duly supported the prosecution’s case. None of the witnesses have levelled any allegation against the present appellant. The co-accused persons, Praveen Agrawal and Vinod Agrawal, have been released on anticipatory bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 23.02.2026 passed in SLP (Crl.) No. 1241/2026 and 1922/2026 respectively. The other co-accused persons, Dilip Tigga, Sudama @ Babulal Shrivastava, Pintu @ Chaturgun Yadav have been granted regular bail by this Court in Cr. A. Nos. 1798/2025, 2145/2025 and 2450/2025, respectively. It is also submitted by him that the co-accused Vinod Agrawal @ Maghu Agrawal and Praveen Agrawal have been discharged from the offences vide order dated 02.07.2026, passed by coordinate bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1218 of 2026. He would further submit that the appellant is the permanent resident of village Bada, District Ramanujganj, which has deep roots in society, and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. He is ready and willing to cooperate with the trial and abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court. Therefore, it is prayed that the appellant be granted the benefit of regular bail. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions and would submit that the appellant is absconding after rejection of his first anticipatory bail application and the charge-sheet has been filed showing him absconding. The permanent arrest 5 warrnat was issued against the appellant by the learned trial Court on 21.07.2025 and in execution of permanent arrest warrant, he could be arrested on 06.07.2026. Trial of the case is in progress, and 09 witnesses have already been examined. Granting of anticipatory bail to the co-accused persons, Praveen Agrawal and Vinod Agrawal, by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and regular bail to other co-accused persons by this Court, would not benefit the present appellant, as there is an allegation against him in the charge sheet. There is a positive allegation of harassment and threats to the deceased by the present appellant and other accused persons, for which the deceased Bhaira Ram committed suicide. The continuous course of harassment and threats culminated in the instigation and amounts to the abetment of suicide. Therefore, the present appeal, which is in fact the bail application of the appellant, is liable to be dismissed. 8. Mr. K. Rohan, learned counsel for the objector/complainant would submit that, he has no objection in granting regular bail to the appellant. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary and also gone through the documents annexed with the present appeal. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the case diary as well as the documents available on record, this Court has considered the nature of allegations levelled against the appellant, the material collected during investigation and the stage of the trial. The appellant has been in custody since 06.07.2026. The charge-sheet has already been filed and, out of 16 prosecution witnesses, 09 witnesses have already been examined. It is also not 6 in dispute that the co-accused persons, namely, Praveen Agrawal and Vinod Agrawal, have been granted anticipatory bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while other co-accused persons have been granted regular bail by this Court, and the aforesaid Praveen Agrawal and Vinod Agrawal have subsequently been discharged by a coordinate Bench of this Court. Although the learned State counsel has submitted that the appellant remained absconding and a permanent arrest warrant was issued against him, the said circumstance by itself, particularly after his arrest and commencement of trial, would not be sufficient to deny bail when the investigation has culminated in filing of the charge-sheet. Further, the objector/complainant, through his learned counsel, has stated that he has no objection to the grant of regular bail to the appellant. This Court is conscious of the allegation under Section 108 of the BNS, 2023 read with Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act; however, at the stage of consideration of bail, a detailed appreciation of the evidence is neither warranted nor permissible. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the period of custody undergone by the appellant, the stage of the trial, the evidence recorded so far, the filing of the charge-sheet, the material available in the charge sheet against the appellant and the fact that the appellant is no longer required for custodial interrogation, without commenting anything on merits, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellant is entitled to be released on regular bail, subject to appropriate conditions to ensure his presence before the trial Court and to safeguard the prosecution evidence. 7 11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 08.07.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act), Balrampur, sitting at Ramanujganj (C.G.), in Special Sessions Case No. 28/2025, is set aside. It is directed that in the event of the appellant furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, he shall be released on regular bail in connection with Crime No. 103/2025, registered at Police Station Naya Rajpur, District Balrampur (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 108 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, subject to the following conditions: (i) the appellant shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date fixed by the said Court, unless his personal appearance is exempted; (ii) 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 such person from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) he shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence or otherwise hamper the trial; and (iv) he shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature during the period of bail. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved