Khalid Raza Vs State of Chhattisgarh

2. This appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short “the SC/ST Act”) has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 15.01.2026 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) whereby the bail application filed

¶17

2

¶18

by the appellant under Section 483 of BNSS in connection with Crime No.462/2025 registered at Police Station Sitapur, district Surguja (C.G.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(2), 115(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 331(7), 152, 61 BNS, Section 3 (2)(Va) of the SC/ST Act and Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act has been rejected.

¶19

3. As per the prosecution case, on 01.12.2025 at about 8:30 p.m., when complainant Nihal Khalkho was taking Naveen Kumar Paikra, a resident of his locality, to his house, the appellant along with co-accused persons, riding motorcycle, car and Scorpio, armed with hockey sticks, rods & sword, allegedly came to take revenge for the quarrel that took place on 31.11.2025. They raised slogans like “Pakistan Zindabad” and “Nara-e-Takbir,” hurled caste-based abuses, entered the house and assaulted him with sticks and rods. They also assaulted other injured persons with sticks and rods. On report being lodged in this regard, offence under the aforesaid sections has been registered against the appellant and co-accused persons.

¶20

4. Learned Counsel for Appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He submits that no seizure has been made from the appellant, he is a student and is preparing for B.Ed. examination. He submits that while the appellant was coming from tuition class, he was arrested by the Police whereas the appellant was not present at the place of incident. He further submits that the appellant is in jail since 04.12.2025 and there is no likelihood of the trial to be concluded at the earliest as it has not yet

¶21

3

¶22

commenced, therefore, considering all these facts, the appellant may be released on bail.

¶23

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the said prayer and submits that the appellant, along with other co-accused persons, has committed an organized crime. They were raising antinational slogans and six persons suffered injuries in the said incident. Therefore, considering the nature of offence, the appellant does not deserve to be released on bail.

¶24

6. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary.

¶25

7. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the nature and gravity of offence and the material collected and available on record against the appellant and also considering the fact that charges have not yet been framed and the trial has not commenced, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case where the appellant can be released on bail.

¶26

8. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed .

¶27

9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

( Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal JUDGE

¶30

Khatai

Khalid Raza v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khalid Raza v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Uttam Pratam Khunte Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ritesh Dhurwey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dinesh Bharti Vs Subhash Ogre

Manish Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Purshottam Chandrakar Vs Ashok Agrawal

Abc (Juvenile) Vs State of Chhattisgarh