Suresh Chandra Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh

The appellant has preferred this Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short “the Act of 1989”) for setting aside of order dated 30.07.2026 passed by the Special Judge SC/ST Act (Atrocities), Kondagaon(C.G.) whereby the regular bail application filed by the appellant under Section 483 of BNSS in connection with Crime No.67/2026 registered at Police Station Narayanpur, District Narayanpur (C.G.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 308(2), 351(2), 61(2), 3(5) of BNS and 3(2) (va) of the Act of1989 has been rejected.

As per the case of the prosecution, the father of the informant/complainant, namely, late Dhaneshwar Nureti, who was working in the Police Department, died in a road accident on 23.08.2025. A claim case was filed, wherein an advocate/co-accused was engaged by the claimant. The learned Tribunal passed an award to the tune of Rs.1 crore. At the same time, terminal benefits were also paid to the legal representative of the deceased Government servant. The advocate/co-accused engaged by the legal representative of the deceased allegedly grabbed a sum of Rs.19 lakhs and demanded a further sum of Rs.50 lakhs, pursuant to which an FIR was lodged.

Mr. Dubey, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that though there is an allegation regarding payment of 50% of Rs.19 lakhs to the present applicant but there is no documentary evidence in this regard. He would contend that the receipt was issued by the co-accused in favour of the complainant. It is also argued that, in the present case, the charge-sheet has already been filed and the appellant is in jail since 17.07.2026. Thus, he would pray to allow this appeal.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the criminal appeal and the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant. He would submit that though there is no documentary evidence in this regard but there is a specific allegation to the effect that the present appellant received 50% of Rs.19 lakhs. He would contend that looking to the gravity of the allegation, the appeal deserves to be rejected.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegation, and the fact that the claim case was filed by the co-accused at the instance of the claimant/legal representative of the deceased Government employee, and further considering the fact that a sum of Rs.19 lakhs was withdrawn from the terminal benefits and said amount was subsequently collected and allegedly grabbed by the co-accused, and though there is an allegation that the present appellant received 50% of said amount but there is no documentary evidence in this regard, coupled with the fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed and the appellant is in jail since 17.07.2026, without making any observation on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the appellant is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is allowed and order dated 30.07.2026 passed by the Special Judge, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Kondagaon (C.G.), in Crime No.67/2026 is hereby set aside.

Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed. The appellant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-

However, this Court hopes and trust that the trial Court should make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible.

Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance.