Vikas Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh

The appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, (hereinafter referred to as “Special Act”) has been filed against the order dated 11.11.2022 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), and Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Raigarh, CG rejecting the application u/s 439 Cr.PC in connection with the Crime No. 576/2022 registered at Police Station Kanker, Sarangarh, District Sarangarh, CG for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294, 506, 323, 307 of IPC and Sections 3 (1) (द) & 3(1) (ध) of SC/ST Act (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Case of the prosecution in short is that on 02.11.2022, the complainant had gone to place the cricket in the ground, at that time at about 6 pm in the evening, the appellants Vikas Yadav with his 20 to 25 friends came there and beaten the complainant with the lathi (wooden rod) and also in the sword. The allegation against the present appellants is also that they are tied in the chain to the complainant and thereafter again beaten him, reluctantly the complainant caused grievous injuries on his head. On the complaint of the complainant, the police has registered the crime as mentioned above against the present appellants and other co-accused persons.

Learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the bail application appellant No. 1 - Vikas Yadav.

Permission is granted.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant No. 2 – Puran Yadav & appellants No. 3 - Umesh are innocent and have been implicated in a false case. He submits that the allegations are against 25 people and victim received certain injuries which are not grievous in nature. Therefore, the offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out. There is no any allegation of causing injuries on the victim/complainant and also no any recovery has been made out. He further submits that appellants are in jail since 02.11.2022 and the charge-sheet has been filed, no custodial interrogation is necessary, the trial is likely to take sometime therefore, appellants may be enlarged on bail.

Learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that there is named FIR against the present appellants and certain injuries have been caused on the complainant/victim, therefore, they are not entitled for grant of bail.

On 05.12.2022 complainant appeared through VC from DLSA and raised objection regarding grant of bail to the appellant.

After hearing counsel for the parties, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the nature of allegation; detention period; charge-sheet has already been filed; trial is likely to take sometime, I am inclined to allowed appeal of appellant No. 2 – Puran Yadav & appellans No. 3 – Umesh.

Accordingly, the appeal of appellant No. 2 – Puran Yadav & appellant No. 3 - Umesh are allowed and the impugned order set aside and it is directed that on appellants shall be released on bail each of them on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one solvent surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court on the condition that :-

a) They shall appear before the trial Court regularly on each and every date, unless exempted from appearance.

b) They shall not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

The observations made hereinabove is only for the purpose of deciding the bail application and the trial will decide the case on its own merit without being influenced by any observation made hereinabove.

Certified copy as per rules.