DEEPAK KEWAT vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010330932026 2026:CGHC:44681
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 2236 of 2026
1 - Deepak Kewat S/o Shri Amrit Lal Kewat Aged About 19 Years R/o
Village Kachanda, Police Station Jaijaipur, District Sakti (Chhattisgarh)
495689
2 - Roop Kumar Sidar, S/o Shri Rajaram Sidar, Aged About 28 Years
R/o Village Kachanda, Police Station Jaijaipur, District Sakti
(Chhattisgarh) 495689
3 - Veer Singh S/o Dukhi Ram, Aged About 20 Years R/o Village
Kachanda, Police Station Jaijaipur, District Sakti (Chhattisgarh) 495689
... Appellants
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Jaijaipur, District
Janjgir -Champa (C.G.)
... Respondent
For Appellants : Mr. Uday Singh Bhadoriya, Advocate
For Respondent
: Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Dy. A.G.
/State
Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Judgment on Board

2
15/10/2026
1. The appellants have preferred this Criminal Appeal under Section
14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short “the SC/ST Act”) for
setting aside of order dated 05/05/2026 passed by the Special
Judge SC/ST Act (Atrocities), Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) whereby the
regular bail application filed by the appellants under Section 483
of BNSS who have been arrested in connection with Crime No.
26/2026 registered at Police Station Jaijaipur, District Janjgir-
Champa (C.G.) for commission of offence punishable under
Sections 191(1), 296, 109(1) of BNS, Sections 25 and 27 of the
Arms Act and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Act, 1989 has been
rejected.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 14/01/2026, the
present appellants along with three other co-accused persons
assaulted four people namely Yuvraj Sidar, Aryan Sidar, Pankaj
Sidar and Rakesh Sidar with the use of iron rod, wooden laathi,
knife and with hands and fists due to which the said injured
persons sustained grievous injuries. On the complaint made by
injured Yuvraj Sidar on 15/01/2026, FIR was registered by the
police against the accused persons for the aforesaid offences.
3. Mr. Uday Singh Bhadoriya, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants, would argue that the appellants are innocent and they
have falsely been implicated in the crime in question. He would
further argue that the injuries sustained by the injured persons are
simple in nature. It is also contended that the appellants have no
previous criminal antecedents; investigation has already been

3
completed; charge-sheet has been filed and the appellants are in
jail since 15/01/2026 and conclusion of trial will likely take
considerable time. With regard to the offence punishable under
Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Act, 1989, learned cousnel for the
appellants would submit that there is no such allegation in the
entire FIR that the appellants abused and assaulted the injured
persons in the name of the their caste, thus, he would pray that
the appellants be released on bail.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned counsel
appearing for the non-applicant/State, opposes the criminal
appeal and the submission made by learned counsel for the
appellants. He would submit that the injuries suffered by Aryan
Sidar are grievous in nature as the appellants inflicted knife blows
upon him as a result of which, he suffered two incised wounds
and one lacerated wound whereas the injuries suffered by other
injured persons are simple in nature. He would further contend
that the appellants assaulted the injured persons knowing fully
well that they are members of Scheduled Tribes. Thus, he would
pray for rejection of this bail application.
5. The complainant appeared before this Court through video
conferencing from the concerned DLSA and gave his consent for
grant of bail to the appellants.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the case
diary and went through the material available on record.
7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case,
nature and gravity of the offence and further considering that out
of four injured persons, three have suffered simple injuries

4
whereas the injuries suffered by only one injured person is said to
be grievous in nature and looking to the fact that complainant has
given his consent for grant of bail to the appellants; the appellants
have no previous criminal antecedents and lastly, taking into
consideration that charge-sheet has been filed and appellants are
in jail since 15/01/2026 and conclusion of trial will likely take
considerable time, without expressing any opinion on the merits of
the case, this Court finds it appropriate to grant bail to the
appellants.
8. Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed and the order dated
05/05/2026, passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act
(Atrocities), Janjgir-Champa is hereby set-aside . The Appellants
– Deepak Kewat, Roop Kumar Sidar and Veer Singh 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 appellants shall file an undertaking to the
effect that they 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 appellants shall remain present before the trial
court on each date fixed, either personally or through
their counsel. In case of their absence, without
sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against
them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita;
(iii) In case, the appellants misuse the liberty of bail
during trial and in order to secure their presence,
proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS is issued and

5
the appellants fail to appear before the court on the
date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court
shall initiate proceedings against them in accordance
with law under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita; &
(iv) The appellants 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 appellants is
deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be
open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse
of liberty of bail and proceed against them in
accordance with law.
9. However, this Court hopes and trust that the trial Court should
make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously
as possible.
10. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial
Court concerned for necessary information and compliance.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
JUDGE
Harneet