[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Mukh Lal Gupta vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 April, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:14936
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 549 of 2026
Nandev Gupta S/o Ghura Gupta Aged About 52 Years R/o Village-
Sagobandh, P.S. Babhni, District Sonbhadra (U.P.)
--- Appellant
Versus
The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer- Police
Station- Sanawal, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj C.G.
--- Respondent(s)
CRA No. 618 of 2026
Balkeshwar Gupta S/o Late Shri Ghurasaw Gupta Aged About 65 Years
R/o Village Sago-Bandh P/s Babhni Distt. Sonbhadra U.P. (Father
Name Wrongly Mention In A/1)
---Appellant(s)
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S Sanaval Distt. Balrampur-
Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondent(s)
Mukh Lal Gupta S/o Ghura Gupta Aged About 64 Years, R/o Village -
Sagobandh, P.S. Babhni, District -Sonbhadra (U.P.)
---Appellant
Versus
The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station -House Officer -Police
Station -Sanawal, District -Balrampur -Ramanujganj (C.G.)
--- Respondents
1 - Ramnarayan Gupta S/o Late Shri Mangru Gupta Aged About 53
Years.
2 - Harinarayan Gupta S/o Late Shri Mangru Gupta Aged About 40
Years.
Both are resident of Village Sagobandh P/s Babhni Distr. Sonbhadra UP
(India).
---Appellant(s)
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Sanaval Distt. Balrampur-
Ramanujganj C.G.
--- Respondent/State
Ramsai God (Pw /1) S/o Shri Duniadayal Aged About 45 Years R/o
village Talkeshwarpur Chodimudi PS -Sanawal Balrampur C.G.
--- Respondent/Complainant
Dayashankar Gupta S/o Shri Mukhlal Gupta Aged About 40 Years R/o
Village Saagobandh P/s Babhni District. Sonbhadra U. P.
--- Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through PS-Sanaval, Distt. Balrampur
Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondent(s)
1 - Rampyare Gupta S/o Shri Harinarayan Gupta Aged About 32 Years.
2 - Sunil Gupta S/o Ramnarayan Gupta Aged About 35 Years.
Both are R/o-Village- Saagobandh, Police Station Babhni Distt.
Sonbhadra U.P.
---Appellants
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Sanaval Distt. Balrampur-
Ramanujganj C.G.
--- Respondent(s)
For Appellants : Mr. Ajay Kumar Mishra & Mr. Rishikant
Mahobia, Advocates
For the State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, GA
(Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma)
Order on Board
01/04/2026
1. The instant appeals under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled
Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
have been filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the
impugned orders Annexure A-1 passed by the learned Special
Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Balrampur-
Ramanujganj C.G, whereby appellants' application filed under
Section 483 of the BNSS for grant of bail have been rejected.
2. Earlier appeal of the appellants has been rejected/dismissed by
this Court vide order dated 01.12.2025 in CRA No.2221/2025.
3. The appellants have preferred this appeal for grant of regular bail
as they are arrested in connection with Crime No.46/2025
registered in Police Station- Sanawal, District Balrampur-
Ramanujganj, C.G. for offence punishable under Sections 191(2),
191(3), 190, 296, 351(2), 115(2), 109(1) of BNS 2023 and
Sections 3 (1) (R) (S) (G) & 3 (2-5) of the SC ST Act.
4. As per the prosecution case, the victim/complainant Ramsai Gond
lodged a report alleging that on 11/08/2025 at about 09:00 AM, he
was doing the cultivation work in the agricultural field at that time
the accused persons more than 20 in number came there armed
with clubs, Axe and sticks and restrained him from doing the work
and hurled filthy abuses and assaulted him stating that the field
belong to them and also threatened to kill him. Based on report,
FIR was registered against the accused persons for the alleged
offence/crime.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
appellants/accused have not abused the complainant party
whereas on the contrary the complainant party have assaulted the
appellants for which an FIR was lodged against them in Crime
No.47/2025. The land in question belongs of the appellants.
Appellants are in jail since long and conclusion of trial will take
some more time, therefore, appellants may be enlarged on bail. In
support of his case, he placed before this Court copy of statement
of Patwari/witnesses (PW-4 to PW-6) and also supplied the same
to the State Counsel.
6. Per contra, learned State Counsel strongly opposes the
submission of counsel for the appellants and would submit that
the present appellants were present on the spot at the time of
alleged incident and they have also participated in crime in
question. In the present case, five persons sustained injuries,
which are serious in nature. Some of the injured persons have
undergone surgical operations due to the said injuries. During the
course of investigation, certain wooden sticks and Axe were
seized, upon which human blood was detected. Report of the
Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) has also confirmed the
presence of human blood on the said articles. He further pointed
out that some of the accused persons are having previous
criminal antecedent. Hence, appellants are not entitled for grant of
bail.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused
the record.
8. Pursuant to order/direction of this Court, victims were appeared
before this Court on 30.03.2026 through virtual mode from the
concerned DLSA and they raised objection in granting bail to the
appellants.
9. It is pertinent to mention here that 06 witnesses have been
examined before the trial Court. PW-4/Patwari has admitted in his
Court evidence that at the place of incident, there is a house of
accused/Ram Lakhan Gupta. He further admitted that at the
place of incident, there is land of the accused persons on which
they are in possession. PW-5/Tilak Prasad in his evidence has
also admitted the fact that at the place of incident, there is a
house of accused/Ram Lakhan Gupta.
10. In view of above facts and evidence of PW-4 & PW-5, it is crystal
clear that there is land dispute between the parties and on the
date of alleged incident complainant party tried to encroach the
land of appellants, due to which, dispute arose between them.
11. Considering the entire facts & circumstances of the case, nature
of allegation and dispute, submissions of counsel for the parties,
particularly the evidence of PW-4 to PW-6 which shows that there
is substantial change in circumstance, therefore, this Court is
inclined to allow the the above appeals.
12. Accordingly, appeals are allowed. Impugned rejection orders
(Annexure A-1) are hereby set aside. It is directed that appellants
shall be released on regular bail upon their furnishing a bail bond
in sum of Rs.10,000/- each with one local surety in the like sum to
the satisfaction of the Court on the conditions that:-
a) Appellants shall appear before trial Court regularly
on each and every date, unless exempted from
appearance.
b) Appellants shall not, in any manner, tamper with the
prosecution witnesses.
c). Appellants shall not, directly or indirectly, make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court
or to any police officer.
d) On the first Sunday of every month, between 11:00
to 12:00 a.m, appellants shall appear before the
concerned Police Station during trial.
Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/- Sd
(Arvind Kumar Verma)
JUDGE
J.
