Allowed

Sameer Bairagi v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC19 Sept 2024CRA/1645/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act challenging the rejection of bail. Considering the appellant's detention since 2022, filing of charge-sheet, and bail granted to co-accused, the court set aside the lower court's order and granted bail.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one solvent surety for like amount, subject to conditions.

Sameer Bairagi Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Caste Atrocities | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

1 / 3

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

CRA No. 1645 of 2024

¶5

1 - Sameer Bairagi S/o. Late Shailendra Bairagi Aged About 32 Years R/o. Gram P.V. 42 Vidyanagar,k P.S.- Pakhanjoor, District - North Bastar Kanker (C.G.)

¶6

... Petitioners

¶7

versus

¶8

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station - Pakhanjoor, District - Kanker (C.G.)

¶9

... Respondents

¶10

For Petitioners : Mr. Nitansh Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Suyansdhar Badgaiya, Dy. GA For Objector : Mr. Shreyansh Pathak, Advocate

¶11

Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

¶12

Order on Board

¶13

20/09/2024

¶14

The 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 27.06.2024 passed by Special Judge (Atrocities) Kanker, CG rejecting the application u/s 439 Cr.PC in connection with the Crime No. 113/2022 registered at Police Station Paknkhajoor, Kanker, CG for the offence

¶15

2 / 3

¶16

punishable under Sections 395, 398, 399, 450, 506-B and 120-B of IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

¶17

The case of the prosecution in brief, is that the complainant has lodged the report against 07 unknown persons with the averment that the accused persons by criminal conspiracy had entered his house situated near FDH 87 Forest Colony, Village- Bade Kapasi, Thana – Pakhanjur armed with the weapons like Sword, Gadasa threatening him and his wife and taken a cash amount Rs. 11,00,000/-, Golden Bangels worth Rs. 1, 41, 360/- and also looted four sets of mobile phones further averment is that on the basis of applicant’s memorandum out of Rs. 25,000/amount Rs. 15,000/- seized from the applicant which is looted by the applicant and other co-accused persons therefore FIR has been lodged against the present applicant.

¶18

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is in jail since 08.09.2022. He submits that almost completed two years as under trial prisoner. He submits that the complainant/victim and 9 other witnesses have been examined. He further submits that the co-accused has already granted bail by this Court vide order dated 20.08.2024 passed in CRA No. 1399 of 2024 and that of one co-accused granted bail by the trial Court. There are 40 witnesses have been projected in the charge-sheet, the trial is likely to take sometime therefore, appellant may be enlarged on bail.

¶19

Learned State counsel opposes the bail application.

¶20

On 20.09.2024 complainant – Bharat Ram Salam appeared through VC from DLSA and raised objection regarding grant of bail to the appellant.

¶21

After hearing counsel for the parties, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the nature of allegation; detention period; co-accused has already granted bail; charge-sheet has already been filed; trial is likely to take sometime, I am inclined to allowed appeal of appellant.

¶22

3 / 3

¶23

Accordingly, the appeal of appellant is allowed and the impugned order set aside and it is directed that on appellant shall be released on bail 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 :-

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

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.

¶27

Certified copy as per rules.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

(Sachin Singh Rajput)

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

Pawan

Sameer Bairagi v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sameer Bairagi v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sandhya Rani Denjare Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Ramoo Ram Dhruwe Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Preeti Goswami Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramgopal Sahu R. G. Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Gopal Prasad Bind (G.P. Bind) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sadhuram Bharadwaj Vs State of Chhattisgarh