Chattisgarh High Court
Rajaul Hasan vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 May, 2025
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
Digitally
signed by
AMIT
PATEL
2025:CGHC:22368
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 990 of 2025
1 - Rajaul Hasan S/o Nabi Rasul Aged About 38 Years R/o Village- Udari, Police
Station And Tahsil- Lundra, District- Surguja (C.G.)
... Appellant
versus
1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Out Post- Bariyo, Police Station-
Rajpur, District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.)
... Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate.
For
Respondent/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, GA
For Objector : Mr. Krishna Tandon, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
27.05.2025
1. The appellant has preferred this Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A(2)
of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for setting aside of
order dated 13.05.2025 passed by the Special Judge SC/ST Act
(Atrocities) Balrampur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) and for
grant of bail to the appellant who has been arrested in connection with
Crime No. 90/2025, registered at Police Station- Rajpur, District
Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) for the offence punishable under
punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 3(5) of
Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes
2
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the appellant along with other co-
accused persons have sold the joint property bearing khasra Nos. 210,
213/2, 215, 240/10, 241/1, 245 area 0.656, 0.097, 0.150, 1.259, 0.172
and 0.134 hectare situated at Tehsil Rajpur, District Balrampur-
Ramanujganj registered in the name of complainant’s mother namely
Jubaro Bai by executing a registered sale deed dated 18/11/2024 in
favour of Shivaram Nagesiya in a fraudulent manner without any consent
of other co-shareholders and without obtaining the permission of the
Sub-divisional Officer/Collector as complainant’s mother Jubaro Bai
belongs to special backward tribe.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent
and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that
the present appellant has not committed any fraud or cheating, he was
the Patwari and posted at Tahsil- Rajpur and he was not posted in Halka
No. 6, he has not provided B-1 and map of the said land, therefore, there
is no connection of the present appellant with the alleged crime and due
to lodge the FIR, the appellant has been placed under suspension. He
further submits that the similarly situated co-accused person namely
Yashwant Kumar who was the Sub-Registrar has already been granted
anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 07.05.2025 in MCRCA
No. 656 of 2025 and also other co-accused persons namely Mahendra
Agrawal and Shivaram Nagesiya and Kamla Nagesiya have already
been granted bail in CRA No. 995 of 2025 & CRA No. 997 of 2025 and
MCRC No. 3993 of 2025, therefore, he submits that the present
appellant is also entitled to be released on bail.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the criminal
appeal and the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant.
3
He further submits that charge-sheet has not been filed in this case.
5. Learned counsel for the objector opposes the submission as made by
counsel for the appellant.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of
learned counsel for the parties, considering the fact that similarly situated
co-accused person namely Yashwant Kumar who was the Sub-Registrar
has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated
07.05.2025 in MCRCA No. 656 of 2025 and also other co-accused
persons namely Mahendra Agrawal and Shivaram Nagesiya and Kamla
Nagesiya have already been granted bail in CRA No. 995 of 2025 & CRA
No. 997 of 2025 and MCRC No. 3993 of 2025, the present applicant is in
jail since 11.05.2025, as such without further commenting anything on
merits and the fact that investigation and trial are likely to take time, this
Court finds it appropriate to grant bail to the appellant.
7. Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed, the Appellant – Rajaul
Hasan, involved in Crime No. 90/2025 registered at Police Station-
Rajpur, District-Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) for the offence
punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 3(5) of
Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, be released
on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties in the like
sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following
conditions:-
(i) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect
that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates
fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in
court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be
open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of
bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
4
(ii) The appellant shall remain present before the trial
court on each date fixed, either personally or through
his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient
cause, the trial court may proceed against his under
Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
(iii) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail
during trial and in order to secure his presence,
proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and
the appellant fails to appear before the court on the
date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court
shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance
with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita.
(iv) The appellant shall remain present, in person,
before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of
the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of
statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion
of the trial court absence of the appellant is deliberate
or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the
trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail
and proceed against him in accordance with law.
8. However, this Court hopes and trust that the trial Court should make an
earnest endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible
preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.
9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court
concerned for necessary information and compliance.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
AMIT PATEL