Sudeep Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh

The appellants have preferred these Criminal Appeals under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short “the SC/ST (P.A.) Act”) for setting aside the respective orders passed by the Special Judge SC/ST Act (Atrocities), Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) dated 03.06.2026, 02.06.2026 and 23.05.2026 whereby the regular bail applications filed by the appellants under Section 483 of BNSS in connection with Crime No. 03/2026 registered at Police Station : Korandha, District : Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 115(2), 109(1), 296, 238 and 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 3(1)(R), 3(1)(S) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (P.A.) Act have been rejected.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 15.02.2026 at about 09:00 pm, a confrontation took place near Village Hanspur after a bauxite-loaded truck was intercepted by local villagers. Thereafter, a scuffle ensued and appellant–Karun Dahariya, who was posted as Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kusmi along with co-accused/ appellants–Sudeep Yadav (informant) and Manjeet Yadav assaulted certain villagers alleging that they were involved in illegal mining of bauxite. In that scuffle, various persons were injured including Ramnaresh, who died during course of treatment on account of excessive internal hemorrhage. First Information Report was lodged by Amar Singh Komre, SHO, P.S. Korandha for the offence punishable u/s 103(1), 115(2) and 3(5) of BNS. Subsequently, during the course of investigation, additional offences punishable u/s 109(1), 115, 296, 238 of BNS and Sections 3(1)(R), 3(1)(S) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (P.A.) Act were incorporated. Appellants were arrested on 16.02.2026. At present, investigation has been concluded, charge-sheet has been filed and some of the prosecution witnesses have been examined before the learned trial court.

Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant–Karun Dahariya leading the argument in this batch of appeals submits that Karun Dahariya was posted as Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kusmi and after receipt of information through an informant regarding illegal mining and transportation of bauxite in Villages Hanspur and Dhaneshpur, he forwarded the said information to the District Collector, Balrampur-Ramanujganj. He further submits that on the instance of District Collector, Karun Dahariya proceeded to the spot along with appellants–Sudeep Yadav and Manjeet Yadav and seized the said vehicle. He also submits that after apprehending the vehicle, Karun Dahariya directed Sudeep Yadav and Manjeet Yadav to bring the seized vehicle to the police station for the purpose of handing it over to the authorities and while they were en-route to the Police Station, some persons working for Rahul Jaiswal, the kingpin of illegal mining, intercepted the vehicle and caused a ruckus.

He contends that a scuffle ensued between the parties and Karun Dahariya contacted the local Naib Tehsildar and requested him to immediately reach the spot with armed force. He further contends that when the Naib Tehsildar reached the spot, Karun Dahariya accompanied him and found some persons in seriously injured condition, including Ramnaresh, who died during the course of treatment. He also contends that inquiry was conducted by the District Collector wherein it was found that present appellants were not involved in commission of any kind of crime and some of the star witnesses have been examined and they have supported the case of defense whereas no incriminating article has been recovered from the appellants tying them to the crime and they are in jail since 16.02.2026, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present appellants.

On the other hand, Mr. S.C. Verma, learned Senior counsel appearing for the objector vehemently opposes these criminal appeals and submits that present appellants brutally assaulted Ramnaresh by hands and fists and as a result, he succumbed to his injuries during treatment. He further submits that deceased was a member of a scheduled tribe, therefore Sections 3(1)(R), 3(1)(S) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (P.A.) Act would attract with full force. He contends that the evidence of witnesses who have supported the case of defense cannot be appreciated at this stage and the Court’s role at bail stage is confined to verifying the existence of prima facie case and in the instant case, a police official has lodged the FIR making specific allegation with regard to assault against the present appellants. He further contends that statements of other injured persons as well as passerby witnesses and police personnel were recorded under Section 180 of BNSS wherein they have categorically stated these named accused persons brutally assaulted the villagers including Ramnaresh using hands and fists. He prays to dismiss the instant appeals.

Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, learned State counsel submits that statements of various witnesses under Section 180 of BNSS were recorded where they have supported the case of prosecution but they have not been examined yet, therefore appellants should not be enlarged on bail at this stage.

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and carefully perused the case diary.

It appears that some witnesses including injured persons and police personnel whose statements under Section 180 of BNSS were recorded have categorically stated that present appellants assaulted the deceased Ramnaresh using hands and fists whereas some of the witnesses examined before the learned Trial Court have supported the defense. In my considered view, evidence adduced by those witnesses cannot be appreciated at this stage as Courts are precluded from undertaking detailed examination of evidence that touch upon the merits of the case and reliability and credibility of the witnesses are matters to be assessed by the learned Trial Court during the course of trial.

It is settled principle of law that the Court’s role at the bail stage is confined to verifying the existence of prima facie case. In the present case, FIR was lodged by a police official wherein specific allegations have been made to the effect that present appellants verbally abused and physically assaulted the villagers including Ramnaresh using hands and fists but the veracity of the allegations made in the FIR cannot be examined in light of defense taken by Mr. Paranjpe.

It is quite vivid that an inquiry was conducted by District Collector, Balrampur-Ramanujganj and some of its findings favor the present appellants but said report is not part of charge-sheet, therefore relevancy of that document cannot be considered at this stage. Also, the appellants would get sufficient opportunity to place relevant material before the learned Trial Court to prove their innocence.

Having considered the above-discussed facts, in my opinion, present is not a fit case to enlarge the appellants on regular bail at this stage. Accordingly, the instant criminal appeals stand dismissed.

Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously.