Chattisgarh High Court
Vinod Kumar Agrawal vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 July, 2025
1
Digitally signed
by BHOLA
NATH KHATAI
Date:
2025.07.02
17:50:06 +0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 1034 of 2025
Rajendra Minj S/o Vinod Minj Aged About 40 Years R/o Batouli, P.S. -
Dhourpur, District - Surguja (C.G.)
--- Appellant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer Of Police Station
- Rajpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.)
--- Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Hariom Rai, Advocate
For State : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. Govt. Advocate
CRA No. 1007 of 2025
Dharampal Kaushik S/o Shri Diva Ram Kaushik Aged About 35 Years
R/o Bada (Village), Police Chowki- Bariyon, P.S. Rajpur, District-
Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) (Accused)
— Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Outpost – Bariyon, Police Station
Rajpur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) (Prosecution)
… Respondent/State
For Appellant : Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Advocate
For State : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. Govt. Advocate
2
CRA No. 1042 of 2025
Dilip Tigga S/o Sameer Tigga Aged About 35 Years R/o Gram Bhaski
Ward No. 14, Police Station And Tehsil Rajpur District Balrampur
Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh
— Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Rajpur, District Balrampur
Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh
— Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate &
Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate
For State : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. Govt. Advocate
For Objector : Mr. Krishna Tandon, Advocate
CRA No. 1065 of 2025
Chaturgun Yadav @ Pintu S/o Dhanushdhari Yadav Aged About 45
Years R/o Village Bheski, Police Chowki Bariyon, Police Station And
Tehsil Rajpur District – Balrampur – Ramanujganj (C.G.)
— Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Rajpur, District-
Balrampur – Ramanujganj (C.G.)
— Respondent
CRA No. 1115 of 2025
Praveen Agrawal S/o Jogiram Agrawal Aged About 45 Years R/o
Mahuwapara Main Road, Rajpur, Police Station Rajpur, District
Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh.
— Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Rajpur, District Balrampur
Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh.
3
— Respondent
CRA No. 1144 of 2025
Vinod Kumar Agrawal S/o Jogiram Agrawal Aged About 50 Years R/o
Mahupara Main Road Rajpur, Police Station- Rajpur, District
Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.)
— Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Rajpur, District
Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.)
… Respondent/State
For Appellants : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate, with
Mr. Rishabh Gupta, Advocate
For State : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. Govt. Advocate
For Objector : Mr. Krishna Tandon, Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Order On Board
01.07.2025
1. Since these six criminal appeals have arisen out of the same Crime
No.103/2025 registered at Police Station Rajpur, District
Balrampur-Ramanujganj (CG) for the offence punishable under
Sections 108, 3(5) of BNS and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
(in short “the SC/ST Act”) seeking for grant of anticipatory/regular
bail, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are
being disposed of by this common order.
2. The above appeals under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act” have
been filed by the appellants challenging the impugned orders
dated 14.05.2025, 24.05.2025, 03.06.2025 passed by the trial
Court – Special Judge (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
4
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act), Balrampur, Place Ramanujganj,
Chhattisgarh, whereby the anticipatory/regular bail applications
filed by the appellants have been dismissed.
3. Appellants Rajendra Minj, Dharampal Kaushik, Praveen Agrawal &
Vinod Kumar Agrawal have preferred CRA Nos.1034/2025,
1007/2025, 1115/2025 & 1144/2025 for grant of anticipatory bail
and appellants Dislip Tigga and Chaturgun Yadav have preferred
CRA Nos.1042/2025 & 1065/2025 for grant of regular bail.
4. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the land of Zubaro Bai was
registered in a joint account with others. Zubaro Bai’s son is the
complainant Santram and her husband Bhaira Ram (deceased)
was a Pahadi Korwa. Appellants Vinod Kumar Agarwal and
Praveen Agarwal fraudulently and deceitfully got the land of
Zubaro Bai registered in the name of Shivaram on 18/11/2024
without partition, in respect of which no money was given to
Zubaro Bai. On the written complaint of Zubaro Bai and Santram
S/o deceased Bhaira Ram, Police registered Crime No.90/2025 on
23/04/2025 under sections 318, 338, 336, 340, 3(5) of Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
5. On the death of Bhaira Ram on 22/04/2025, on the information of
his son Santram, Merg was registered and enquiry was conducted.
On the second written complaint of complainant Santram and after
Merg enquiry, on 06/05/2025, Crime No.103/2025 under sections
108, 3(5) of BNS, 2023 was registered against the appellants and
Sudama Sharma at Police Station New Rajpur, in which section 3
2 (v) of the SC/ST Act was also added later. The said crime was
registered on the basis of written complaint of Santram and also
on the basis that in the Merg enquiry it was found that the
appellants, co-accused Sudama Sharma and their other
companions used to tell Bhaira Ram that now the land belongs to
them and he should run away and was harassed by threatening to
5
beat him, due to which Bhaira Ram committed suicide by hanging
himself in the intervening night of 21/22 April, 2025.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants argue that the date of execution
of the sale deed is stated to be 18/11/2024. The suicide by Bhaira
Ram is said to have occurred on the intervening night of 21 &
22/04/2025. Thereafter on 23/04/2025, the first Crime No.90/2025
was registered on the written complaint of his son Santram, in
which there are other accused and no facts have been mentioned
for abetting/instigating Bhaira Ram to commit suicide. In Crime
No.90/2025, the accused Shivaram Nagesia, Uday Sharma,
Mahendra Agarwal, Amit Gupta, Riazul Hasan & Kamla Nagesia
have been granted regular bail by the Coordinate Bench of this
Court while co-accused of that case Mahendra Gupta, Rahul
Singh, Yashwant Kumar & Rahul Agarwal have been given the
benefit of anticipatory bail. Only the anticipatory bail application of
accused Vinod Kumar Agarwal has been rejected and accused
Praveen Agrawal had not filed any application for grant of bail and
Vinod Agarwal and Praveen Agarwal are the only two accused who
are also accused in Crime No.103/2025. Thus, both crime
numbers i.e. 90/2025 and 103/2025 have been registered after the
death of Bhaira Ram against different accused except two accused
Vinod Agarwal and Praveen Agarwal.
7. The further argument of learned counsel for the appellants is that at
the time of registration of Crime No.90/2025 on 23.04.2025, Bhaira
Ram had died but no fact has been mentioned in that regard in the
FIR of Crime No.90/2025. Crime No.103/2025 has been
registered against the present appellants after a long time on
06/05/2025. The subject matter of both the crime numbers is the
same. In Crime No.90/2025, anticipatory/regular bail applications
of other co-accused except Vinod Kumar Agarwal have been
allowed and the subject matter is same, therefore, in this case, the
appellants are also entitled for anticipatory/regular bail. Section 18
6
of the Special Act is not attracted because the offence under the
Special Act is not made out by the First Information Report. In
support of this argument, they relied upon the judgments of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prathvi Raj Chouhan v.
Union of India and others reported in (2020) 4 SCC 727 and
Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand and another reported in
(2020) 10 SCC 710.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants also argued that if there are
several other offences registered against an accused, on that sole
ground his bail cannot be refused in the case in which prima facie
offence is not made out against him. In support of this argument,
reliance was placed on Prabhakar Tewari v. State of UP and
another, (2020) 11 SCC 648. It has been argued that in case of
abetment of suicide, a prima facie case must be disclosed and the
active role of the accused should also be evident in it. It is a well-
settled principle of law that while rejecting the bail application, the
Court should examine the matter minutely. They placed reliance on
Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra and
others, (2021) 2 SCC 427, in which it has been held that while
deciding bail application, the Court should keep in mind the
fundamental right to personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution
and its principal that bail not jail.
9. Learned State counsel has opposed the above argument of the
appellants and submitted that the impugned orders passed by the
trial court is proper. She submits that there are 6 other criminal
cases registered against appellant Praveen Agarwal and 9 criminal
cases registered against appellant Vinod Kumar Agarwal.
Evidence has been collected regarding the common intention of
the remaining accused along with the appellants Vinod and
Praveen for harassing Bhaira Ram. Both the crime numbers have
been registered on the basis of the written complaint of
complainant Santram. In Crime No.90/2025, the original complaint
7
is of fraudulently executing the sale deed of the land of Zubaro Bai
in the name of someone else without giving her any consideration
amount, in which other accused apart from Vinod Kumar Agarwal
and Praveen Agarwal are involved. The said crime (Crime
No.90/2025) was definitely registered on 23/04/2025 but its written
complaint was given to the Police earlier and it does not appear
that at the time of giving written complaint, Bhaira Ram had died.
Hence, after the death of Bhaira Ram, a separate written complaint
was given by his son Santram, based on which and after Merg
enquiry on the death of Bhaira Ram, on 06/05/2025, the second
First Information Report has been registered against the appellants
and co-accused Sudama Sharma in Crime No.103/2025. There is
a difference in offence in both the crimes, there is a difference in
the accused and the main accused in the entire conspiracy and
abetment is Vinod Kumar Agarwal, whose anticipatory bail has
been rejected by the Coordinate Bench in respect of Crime
No.90/2025, whereas no bail application was filed by Praveen
Agarwal in respect that crime number. In this Crime No.103/2025,
both these accused have come for anticipatory bail. Learned state
counsel submits that the investigation of the case is incomplete, in
this situation, at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is
made out against the appellants. Due to the difference in both the
crimes, the benefit of bail given to other accused by the Coordinate
Bench in Crime No.90/2025 cannot be given to the present
appellants because none of the appellants has got any relief from
this Court in Crime No.90/2025. In such a situation, the appeals
seeking for grant of anticipatory/regular bail to the appellants
deserve to be dismissed.
10. Heard both the parties and perused the case diary with utmost
circumspection.
11. From perusal of the record, it is clear that both the crimes have
been registered by the Police on the written complaint of
8
complainant Santram. It is also clear that the appellants Praveen
Agarwal and Vinod Kumar Agarwal are the common accused in
both the crimes, whereas the other appellants have neither been
accused in the first Crime No.90/2025 nor have they been given
any relief by the Court in that crime. The common accused
Praveen Agarwal did not file any bail application in respect of
Crime No.90/2025 and the anticipatory bail application of Vinod
Kumar Agarwal in respect of Crime No.90/2025 has been rejected.
There are 9 other criminal cases registered against appellant
Vinod Kumar Agarwal and 6 criminal cases registered against
appellant Praveen Agarwal. In both the crimes, they have not been
arrested till date. Crime No.103/2025 has been registered against
the present appellants. The Police investigation in the case is not
complete. At this stage, it would not be appropriate to comment
anything on the merits of the appeals. Hence, in view of the
incompleteness of the investigation, this Court finds that the
appeals filed seeking grant of anticipatory/regular bail to the
appellants is not sustainable at this stage.
12. Accordingly, CRA 1034/2025, 1007/2025, 1115/2025 & 1144/2025
filed for grant of anticipatory bail and CRA 1042/2025 & 1065/2025
filed for grant of regular bail in respect of Crime No.103/2025
registered at Police Station Rajpur, District Balrampur-
Ramanujganj (CG) are hereby dismissed.
13. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial
Court concerned for necessary information.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
Khatai