Kapil Thakur vs State Of Chhattisgarh

The appellant has preferred this Appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’) for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.191/2021, registered at Police Station Magarlod, District Dhamtari for offence under Sections 294, 323, 506, 341, 147, 148, 149, 427, 324, 307 of the IPC, Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3(1)(R), 3(1)(s), 3(2) (V-A) & 3(2)(v) of the Act.

This is the 3rd  bail application on behalf of the appellant.  The earlier bail application has been rejected by this Court on merits vide order dated 5.5.2022 passed in CRA No.556/2022 reserving liberty to revive the prayer after examination of the injured witnesses, and the second bail application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order passed in CRA No.1958/2022 on 14th December, 2022.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the first bail application was rejected considering the fact that there are 7 criminal antecedents of the appellant. He submits that out of 7 cases, the appellant has already been acquitted in 6 cases and only one case is pending in which charges have been framed. He also submits that all the offences were registered while the applicant was minor and the cases were tried by the Juvenile Justice Board, and one case which is pending relates to the offence under Sections 147, 427, 353 read with Section 149 of the IPC and Section 3 of the Chikitsa Sewak Tatha Chikitsa Sewa Sansthan (Hinsa Tatha Sampatti Ki Kshati Ya Hani Ki Roktham) Adhiniyam, 2010. He has also drawn attention of the Court towards the statement of Dr. Tejendra Kumar Sahu (PW-5) at para-18 wherein it has been categorically deposed that he has not given any opinion about the injuries caused to the injured persons to be fatal in nature. He further submits that no fracture injury was caused to the injured persons. Lastly, he submits that the appellant is in jail since 11th September, 2021 and out of 9 accused persons, 4 accused have already been released on bail, so, the present appellant may also be released on bail.

On the other hand, learned State Counsel would oppose the prayer for grant of bail.

Having considered the submissions of the parties, particularly considering the length of pre-trial detention and the fact that the injured witnesses have already been examined, without further commenting anything on the merits of the case, I am inclined to release the appellant on bail.

Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed and the appellant is directed to be released on bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with 2 sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. He is directed to appear before the trial Court on each and every date given by the said Court.