1 - Amit Gupta S/o Vijay Gupta Aged About 34 Years R/o Pindra, Police v. 2 - Santram S/o Late Bhaira Aged About 30 Years R/o Bhaski Chowki Bariyo
Case Details
Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 1 2025:CGHC:22407 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1024 of 2025 1 - Amit Gupta S/o Vijay Gupta Aged About 34 Years R/o Pindra, Police Station - Balrampur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Appellant 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Rajpur, District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) versus 2 - Santram S/o Late Bhaira Aged About 30 Years R/o Bhaski Chowki Bariyo Police Station - Naya Rajpur District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Manoj Paranjpe along with Mr. Rishabh Gupta, Advocates For Respondent/State For Objector : : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, GA Mr. Krishna Tandon, Advocate Hon'ble Shri , Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha 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 2 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. 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 OfÏcer/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 Smt. Jubaro Bai who is the co-shareholder of the land and her name was also recorded in the revenue records of land bearing Khashra 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, Smt. Jubaro Bai had executed the sale deed dated 18.11.2024 in favour of the appellant Shivaram after receiving the consideration amount and the present appellant does not have any role in transaction between Jubaro Bai and the appellant Shivaram. Smt. Jubaro Bai had sold her share after obtaining the consent letter from other co-shareholders. The appellant is the only witness in the sale deed with respect to sale and consideration amount and at the time of registry, seller herself (Jubaro Bai) was present in the registry ofÏce with consent letter and she has received the consideration amount with respect of sell 3 of land. 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 and the present appellant is in jail since 11.05.2025, 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. 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 appellant 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 –Amit Gupta, involved in Crime No. 90/2025 registered at Police Station- Rajpur, District-Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) for the offence punishable 4 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. (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 sufÏcient 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 sufÏcient 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 5 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. OfÏce 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