Golu Khan @ Abdul Seemar vs State Of Chhattisgarh

This appeal is filed under Section 14-A(2) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for grant of regular bail to the appellant as he is arrested 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 and 61 of BNS, 2023 and Section 3(2)(V-A) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the complainant Nihal Khalkho, who is a resident of Uranwpara, Sitapur and does labour work, lodged a FIR stating that on the date of incident i.e. 01.11.2025 at about 08:30 PM, he was going to drop his neighbour Naveen Kumar Painkra to his house. At that very time, due to a pre-existing dispute, the appellant/accused and other co-accused persons, including Hasrad Khan, Niku Khan, Chandan Das, Mahesh Das, Bittu Das and other persons, forming a common intention, armed with weapons like lathi, danda, hockey stick and sword, reached there on motorcycle and Scorpio vehicle and after threatening to kill, assaulted the complainant and his companions. In the said incident, Nihal Khalkho (PW-1), Naveen Painkra (PW-2), Rajnish (PW-3), Anish Kujur (PW-4), Sonu alias Manoj Rajak (PW-5) and Aman Khess (PW-6) sustained injuries. During the incident, the appellant/accused and other co-accused persons while hurling abuses, forcibly entered the house and raised slogans of "Pakistan Zindabad" and "Nara-e-Takbeer" while saying that "Adivasi-Uraon people do not have the stature to confront us". Hearing the said hue and cry, people from the vicinity also gathered at the place of incident. An attempt was made by the appellant/accused along with other co-accused persons to incite Hindu-Muslim riot. On the information of complainant Nihal Khalkho, a crime was registered against the appellant/accused and other co-accused persons and the injured persons were medically examined. During investigation, apart from the injured persons, statements of spot witnesses Yasika Minj, Rajshri Namdev, Shalu Minj, Divyanka Singh, Manisha Tigga etc. were recorded. Seizure proceedings were conducted and after complete investigation, the charge-sheet was filed.

By order dated 05.08.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge in Crime No. 462/2025, the bail application filed by the appellant has been rejected against which the appellant has filed this appeal.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that all the injured witnesses (PW-1 to PW-6) have been examined before the trial Court and turned hostile, as they do not support the case of the prosecution. The memo and seizure witnesses have also turned hostile. He lastly submits that there are a total of 21 accused persons in the case, out of which this Court has already granted bail to 18 accused persons, and the appellant is in jail since 01.12.2025, and the trial is likely to take considerable time to be finalised; therefore, it is prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the appellant may also be released on bail.

On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the State opposes the bail application and submits that there is a named FIR against the present appellant and a seizure of a sword from the appellant. He further submits that no eyewitnesses have been examined to date. As such, there is sufficient evidence available on record against the Appellant. Therefore, at this stage, the Appellant may not be granted bail.

The victim appeared through video conferencing from the concerned DLSA and recorded no objection to grant of bail to the appellant.

I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents available on record.

Considering the fact that the learned counsel for the Respondent/State does not dispute that the injured witnesses Nihal Khalkho (PW-1), Naveen Painkra (PW-2), Rajnish (PW-3), Anish Kujur (PW-4), Sonu @ Manoj Rajak (PW-5), and Aman Khess (PW-6) have not attributed any specific role or overt act to the Appellant/Accused in their depositions before the Court. Furthermore, 18 co-accused persons standing on similar footing have already been enlarged on bail by this Court, establishing parity. Considering the Appellant’s period of judicial custody (approximately 9 months), the current stage of the prosecution evidence, and the likelihood of delay in the conclusion of the trial, this Court deems it just and proper to release the Appellant on bail.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 05.08.2026 passed by the learned Trial Court is set-aside.

It is directed that the Appellant shall be released on bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the said Court as and when directed.