1 CGHC010251702026 2026:CGHC:39811 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1614 of 2026 1 - Raghvendra Jaiswal Son Of Shri Jivendra Nath Jaiswal, Aged About 25 Years R/o. Village Jiraladih, Post Sendari, Police Station Nagarda, District Sakti (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Nagarda, District Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) (Now Distt. Sakti) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, GA For Complainant : Mr. Ravi Pal Maheshwari, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 11.09.2026 1. The appellant has preferred this Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Ordinance, 2014 for PRIYANKA VERMA Digitally signed by PRIYANKA VERMA Date: 2026.09.11 17:30:38 +0530 2 setting aside of order dated 23.06.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge SC & ST (P.A.) Act, Janjgir-Champa, District Janjgir-Champa and for grant of bail to the appellant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 54/2026, registered at Police Station- Nagarda, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(3), 115(2), 117(2) and 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3-1(R-S) & 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant- Manoj Kumar Sandey, lodged a report at Police Station Nagarda on 31.05.2026, alleging therein that the appellant, along with other co-accused persons, abused him by taking his caste name, knowing fully well that the complainant is a member of a Scheduled Tribe and also assaulted him with kicks and stones. On the basis of the said report, the police registered an FIR against the appellant and other co-accused persons. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that there are three accused persons in total, out of whom two have already been enlarged on bail by the learned trial Court. He submits that there was a dispute between the appellant’s neighbour, namely, Shiv Kumar Jaiswal, at whose house the complainant- Manoj Kumar Sandey and his father were working as labourers for construction work. He also submits that the allegation against the present appellant is that he threw a stone from his roof, which caused an injury to the shoulder of the complainant, resulting in dislocation of his left shoulder. He would further contend 3 that, in the present case, the charge-sheet has already been filed and the appellant has been in custody since 11.06.2026. With regard to the criminal antecedents, Mr. Patel submits that in the pending criminal case, the appellant has already been acquitted by the competent Court. He, therefore, prays that the present appeal may kindly be allowed. 4. Learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that, though the appellant has stated that he was acquitted in the criminal antecedent, no document in support thereof has been placed on record. Mr. Shrivastava would submit that, as per the medical report, the injured sustained serious injuries, including a fracture. He, therefore, submits that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. Mr. Ravi Pal Maheshwari, Advocate appearing for the complaint would not oppose the appeal preferred by the appellant. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the case diary. 7. Having considered the fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed, the appellant has been in custody since 11.06.2026, and, with regard to the criminal antecedents, the appellant has been acquitted by the competent Court in all the cases, and further considering that the offence was not committed with the intention of targeting the complainant on the ground that he belongs to a particular category, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, and considering that the trial is likely to take some time, this Court finds it appropriate to grant bail to the appellant. 8. Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed, the Appellant – Raghvendra 4 Jaiswal be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against his under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the appellant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the appellant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open 5 for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 9. However, this Court hopes and trust that the trial Court should make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible. 10. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Priyanka