Ayaj Ahmad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

On a mention being made by learned counsel for the applicants that he wants to withdraw the present Bail Petition with liberty to file an appeal as provided under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, because during pendency of the present Bail Petition, charge sheet has been filed for the offence under the SC/ST Act also, and having considered his prayer, the matter has been listed today itself

This is an application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicants, who have been arrested in connection with Crime No.71/2025, registered at Police Station - Police Outpost – Raghunathpur, Police Station – Lundra District Surguja (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 115(2), 296, 3(5), 324(2), 351(2) of B.N.S.

Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that after filing of the present bail Petition, the charge sheet has been filed against the present applicants for the offence under Sections 115(2), 296, 3(5), 324(2), 351(2) of B.N.S. and an offence under the Atrocities Act has also been added in the charge sheet. He submits that in view of the provisions contained in Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the present Bail Petition is not maintainable and an appeal is required to be filed for grant of bail. Learned counsel for the applicants would further submit that in view of the aforesaid, he does not want to press the present Bail Petition, however, a liberty may be granted to the applicants to take

3

recourse available to them under the law.

The submission made by learned counsel for the applicants is not opposed by learned counsel for the State.

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the application is allowed and the applicants are permitted to withdraw the present Bail Petition.

Accordingly, the Bail Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty prayed for. Sd/-

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)

¶29

Judge

Shyna

Ayaj Ahmad v. State of Chhattisgarh