Chandrashekhar Netam Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:305

¶3

AVINASH SHARMA

¶4

Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2025.01.03 16:44:33 +0530

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

NAFR

¶7

CRA No. 2263 of 2024

¶8

Chandrashekhar Netam S/o Late Shri Shivkumar Netam Aged About 38 Years Resident Of Sarswani Nagar Nayapara Road, Imli Chounk Durg, P.S. City Kotwali Durg, District Durg (Chhattisgarh).

¶9

... Appellant.

¶10

versus

¶11

State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Pankhajoor, District Kanker Chhattisgarh.

¶12

. State/respondent.

¶13

For Appellant : Shri Nitansh Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate. For State : Shri Ajit Singh, GA.

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari

¶15

Order On Board

¶16

03/01/2025

¶17

This appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the “SC/ST Act”) has been filed against the order dated 29.11.2024 passed by Special Judge Atrocities Act, Kanker, C.G. rejecting the application under Section 439 Cr.PC in connection with Crime No.113/22, Special S.T. No.57/2022 registered at Police Station Pankhajoor for the offence punishable under

¶18

2

¶19

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

¶20

Earlier bail application of the present appellant was dismissed as withdrawn reserving liberty in favour of appellant to file afresh after examination of the memorandum, seizure and identification witnesses vide order dated 24.04.2023 passed in CRA No.236 of 2023. Subsequent to which, another bail application of the appellant was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 21.10.2024 passed in CRA No.1877 of 2024.

¶21

Case of the prosecution in brief is that complainant has lodged the report against 07 unknown persons with an averment that the accused persons hatched a criminal conspiracy and had entered his house situated near FDH 87 Forest Colony, village – Bade Kapasi, Thana – Pakhajoor armed with the weapons like Sword, Gadasa threatening him and his wife and looted cash amount Rs.11,00,000/- Golden Bangles worth Rs.1,41,360/and also looted four sets of mobile phones. Further averment is that on the basis of appellant’s memorandum an amount of Rs.50,000/- was seized which was looted by the appellant and other co-accused persons therefore FIR has been lodged against the present appellant.

¶22

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that present appellant is in jail since 09.09.2022 and similar situated co-accused persons namely Prabhas Mahaldar, Narayan Das, Sameer Bairagi and Suchen Nishad have already been enlarged on bail vide orders dated 20.08.2024, 18.10.2024, 20.09.2024 and 02.01.2025 passed in CRA No.1399 of 2024, CRA No.1669 of 2024, CRA No.1645 of 2024 and CRA No.2195 of 2024 respectively. One of the co-accused namely Kalu @ Anadi Haldar has also been enlarged on bail by the trial Court on the ground of parity and case

¶23

3

¶24

of the present appellant is similar to that of other co-accused who have been enlarged on bail. He would further submit that complainant Bharat Ram Salam (PW-1) has not identified the present appellant. Considering the backdrop, present appellant may kindly be enlarged on bail.

¶25

Learned State counsel opposes the bail application.

¶26

Complainant Bharat Ram Salam appears before this Court through V.C. from concerned DLSA and raised objection for grant of bail to the appellant.

¶27

Having considered the submission particularly the statement of complainant Bharat Ram Salam who has not identified the present appellant during the incident, further considering the length of pre trial detention of the appellant and the fact that similar situated co-accused have already been enlarged on bail, considering above aspects, I am inclined to allow this appeal.

¶28

Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and it is directed that appellant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court on the condition that:-

¶29