1

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

CRA No. 1611 of 2021

1.

Dev Dewangan alias Devendra Dewangan S/o Pawan Dewangan,

aged about 26 years, R/o Ward No. 3, Dammani Colony, Nayapara,

Police Station Gobra Nayapara, District Raipur, CG

2.

Paresh Kansari alias Pappu Kansari, S/o Babulal Kansari, aged about

20 years, R/o Ward No. 18, Butipara Paragaon Police Station Gobra

Nayapara, District Raipur, CG

---- Appellants

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh through SHO, Police Station Magarlod (Outpost

Karelibadi), District Dhamtari, CG

---- Respondent

For Appellants

-

Shri Y.C. Sharma Sr. Advocate with

Shri Anil Gulati, Adv.

For State

-

Shri B.P. Banjare, Dy. GA

Order on Board by Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari

25

/02/2022

This appeal under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, (hereinafter referred to as

“Special Act”) has been filed against the order dated 02.12.2021 passed by

Special Judge, Dhamtari, rejecting the bail application u/s 439 CrPC in

connection with the Crime No. 191/2021 registered at Police Station Magarlod

(outpost Karelibadi) District Dhamtari for the offence punishable under Sections

294, 323, 506, 341, 147, 148, 149, 427, 324, 307 IPC; 25, 27 Arms Act and 3

(1) (द), 3 (1) (ध), 3 (2) (V क) and 3 (2) (V) of the Special Act.

2.

Case of the prosecution in short is that an FIR was lodged by injured

Champu alleging that on 01.08.2021 at about 3 PM Nikhil Rao, Chandan

Jain, Kapil Thakur, Manish Nishad and others had threatened him and his

friends; used filthy language; and also assaulted him with iron rod and knife.

2

Apart from complainant, his friend is also said to have suffered injury.

3.

Counsel for the appellants submits that even if the entire case of the

prosecution is taken as it is, the offence under Section 307 IPC is not made

out against the appellants as the injuries suffered by the victim are not

sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. According to him,

even the provisions of Special Act are not attracted to the facts of the case,

and therefore, looking to the nature of allegations, the applicants may be

released on bail.

4.

State counsel referring to certain criminal antecedents of accused Dev

Dewangan strongly opposes the prayer for bail. Victims, four in number,

appearing through Video Conferencing also oppose the same.

5.

After hearing counsel for the parties, considering the fact that no

seizure of any weapon was made from the appellants; even the victim who

lodged the FIR did not name the accused/appellants in Dehati Nalisi, and

that there is delay of about 20 days in recording the 161 CrPC statments of

the victims, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case to grant bail to the

appellants. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, and it is directed that on each

of the appellants' furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with two

sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned 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 them from disclosing such fact to the Court,

(ii)

They shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and

expeditious trial,and

(iii)

They shall not involve themselves in any offence of similar nature in

future.

Sd/-

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari)

Judge

Jyotishi