Chattisgarh High Court
Sohail Khan Alias Sujju vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 13 June, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:24001
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 880 of 2025
1 - Sohail Khan Alias Sujju S/o Eid Mohammad Aged About 20 Years
R/o Bazarpara, Ward No. 4 Sakti, District- Sakti, Chhattisgarh.
... Appellant(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Sakti, District- Sakti
(C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Shri Mayank Mulchandani and Shri Praveen
Sharma,Advocates
For Respondent/State : Shri Satish Gupta, GA.
(Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma)
Judgment on Board
13/06/2025
This 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 02.04.2025
passed by the Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989,
District Sakti in connection with Special Criminal Case No. 03/2025
registered at police station Sakti, District Sakti (CG) for the offence
2
punishable under Sections 302, 323, 506 (2) and 34 IPC of BNS and
Section 3 (2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989.
2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 26.12.2023 at about
1.00 pm, complainant Ramji and deceased Raju Lal @ Roshan were
sitting near the water tank at Budhwari Bazar, Sakti at that point of time,
acused Rahul Yadav, Sohail Khan @ Sajju and Manav Sidar came and
demanded for Chilam from Ramji. When he refused to give, appellant
and the co-accused persons abused them and assaulted with hands
and fists as a result of which Rajulal @ Roshan sustained grievous
injures and died. Report was lodged by complainant Ramji and Crime
No. 404/2023 was registered against the appellant and co-accused for
the offence punishable under Sections 294,506,323 and 34 IPC. During
treatment Rajulal @ Roshan succumbed to the injuries and thereafter
Section 302 IPC and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
were added.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has
been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He further submits that
the prosecution witnesses have not supported the case of proecution
and turned hostile. He submits that the charge sheet has been filed, the
appellant is in jail since 29.12.2023 and the trial will take sometime to
conclude, therefore he would pray for grant of bail to the appellant.
4. On the other hand, counsel for the State opposes the bail
application.
5. The complainant/father of the deceased was present before the
Court and has raised objection.
3
6. Heard counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the
prosecution witnesses have turned hostile and further looking to the
fact that the charge sheet has been filed and the appellant is in jail
since 29.12.2023, this Court is of the considered opinion that present is
a fit case to grant bail to the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal is
allowed.
7. It is directed that in the event of the appellant executing a
personal bond for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one local surety in the like
sum to the satisfaction of the trial court, he shall be released on bail
subject to the following conditions:
i) That the appellant shall furnish a specific undertaking that
while on bail, he will not commit any such offence,
otherwise bail granted to him shall be liable to be cancelled
and shall co-operate the prosecution during trial.
ii) that the accused/appellant shall not, directly or
indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any
person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or
to any police officer.
iii) That the accused/appellant shall not act, in any
manner, which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma)
Judge
Digitally signed
by SUGUNA
SUGUNA DUBEY
DUBEY Date:
2025.06.17
11:14:50 +0530