1 CGHC010282922026 2026:CGHC:40350 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1888 of 2026 1 - Kamesh Sahu S/o Nandlal Sahu Aged About 24 Years R/o 377 Ward No.52, Near Manas Bhawan Bosri, Durg P.S. Padmnabhpur Dist- Durg (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Padmnabhpur, District- Durg (C.G.) ---- Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Rakshit Agrawal, Advocate For State : Mr. Keshav Gupta, GA Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 16.09.2026 1. The appellant has preferred this Criminal Appeal under Section 14- A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short “the SC/ST Act”) for setting aside of order dated 24.07.2026 passed by the Special Judge SC/ST Act (Atrocities), Durg (C.G.) whereby the regular bail application filed by the appellant under Section 483 of BNSS in connection with Crime No.308/2024 registered at Police Station Padmnabhpur, Durg (C.G.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections -2- 103(1),3(5), 61(2),191(1), 191 (2), 191(3)and 238 of BNS, 2023; Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and 3 (2)(v) and 3(1)s of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act of 1989’) has been rejected. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 13.08.2024, the complainant filed a written complaint before the police authorities alleging that on 12.08.2024, at about 11:10 p.m., his nephew, namely, Shubham Bande, was assaulted by Ravi Yadav and other co-accused persons with a knife and other incriminating articles near Government School, Borsi Bhanta, as a result of which Shubham sustained grievous injuries on his stomach, head and back. He was immediately taken to the hospital, where the doctors declared him dead. An FIR was lodged against Ravi Yadav by name and others on 13.08.2024 under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023. Accused Ravi Yadav was arrested and, on the basis of his memorandum statement, co-accused persons, namely, Sahil Yadav, Ritendra Yadav, Murali Yadav, Harish Mugari, Aman Bhatt, Dinesh Yadav, Om Prakash Dewangan, Komesh Sahu, Vedprakash Sahu and the present applicant, were arrested. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the seizure witnesses and eyewitnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. He would further contend that, as per the FSL report, no blood was found on the weapon seized from the possession of the present applicant. He would further contend that the applicant is in jail since 20.08.2024. He would pray to allow this appeal. 3 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the criminal appeal and the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant. He would submit that out of 31 witnesses, 12 witnesses have been examined. He would further submit that 19 witnesses are yet to be examined. It is also submitted that first bail application was dismissed on merits vide order dated 28.10.2025. He would submit that testimony of the prosecution witnesses cannot be examined in detail at this stage. He would submit that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Admittedly, the first bail application was rejected on merits vide order dated 28.10.2025. While entertaining an application for grant of bail pertaining to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the Court has to consider the prima facie case, the ingredients of Section 3 of the Act of 1989, the allegations made against the applicant and the material available on record. 7. The first bail application was rejected by the Coordinate Bench vide order dated 28.10.2025 after taking into consideration the entire material available on record and the case diary. 8. It is a well-settled principle of law that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses cannot be appreciated while entertaining a bail application. It is argued that the eyewitnesses and seizure witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution, but 18 -4- witnesses are yet to be examined. It is the duty of the Trial Court to consider and appreciate the evidence. 9. Having considered the above-stated facts, I do not find any good ground to allow this appeal. Consequently, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha