Dilip Chandak vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 72 Chatt

                                       1

                                                                    NAFR
         HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                       CRA No. 218 of 2021

      Dilip Chandak S/o Murli Manohar Chandak, aged about
       26 years, R/o Sakin - Pujaripara, Police Station - Bijapur,
       District Bijapur (C.G.)
                                                           ---- Appellant
                                   Versus
      State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Station House
       Officer, Police Station Ajak Bijapur, District - Bijapur
       (C.G.)
                                                       ---- Respondent

For Appellant : Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Sameer Uraon, G.A.

Hon'ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey Order on Board 08/04/2021

1. The appellant has preferred this criminal appeal under Section 14(A) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for grant of anticipatory bail, as he apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.01/2021, registered at Police Station - Ajak, Bijapur, District Bijapur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 376 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocity), Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act 1989').

2. The prosecution story, according to FIR is that, the complainant/prosecutrix is working as Pharmacist in P.H.C. Cherpal since 2016. The prosecutrix and the applicant were in love with each other. It is alleged in the FIR that the appellant committed sexual intercourse with her on the pretext of marriage and when the

applicant refused to marry her, she lodged the FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that even if the entire story, as stated in the FIR and the case diary statement, is taken as it is, there is absolutely no element that the appellant acted in such manner because of only she belongs to Scheduled Tribe. He submits that the prosecutrix is major and she is consenting party to the act of the appellant. He also submits that the offence under the Act 1989 has been added only on the ground that the complainant belongs to Scheduled Tribe.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the bail application.

5. Notice issue to complainant is reported to be served.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the matter of Maheshwar Tigga Vs. State of Jharkhand (Criminal Appeal No.635/2020 arising out of S.L.P. (Cri) No.393/2020)., held that the prosecutrix willingly consented to having sexual intercourse with the appellant with whom she was deeply in love, not because he promised to marry her, but because she also desired it. In these circumstances, it would be very difficult to impute to the appellant knowledge that the prosecutrix had consented in consequence of a misconception of fact arising from his promise. In any event, it was not possible for the appellant to know what was in the mind of the prosecutrix when she consented, because there were more reasons than one for her to consent.

8. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of

Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No.707/2020 arising out of SLP (Criminal ) No.3585/2020), in para 18, held that offence under the Act is not established merely on the fact that the informant is a member of Scheduled Caste unless there is an intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the reason that the victim belongs to such caste. In the present case, the parties are litigating over possession of the land. The allegation of hurling of abuses is against a person who claims title over the property. If such person happens to be a Scheduled Caste, the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act is not made out.

9. After hearing counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Maheshwar (supra) and Hitesh (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the appellant in connection with aforesaid crime number, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned arresting/investigating officer or the court concerned, as the case may be, with the following terms and conditions:

(i) that the appellant shall make himself available for

interrogation/medical examination before the concerned

investigating officer as and when required;

(ii) that the appellant shall not, directly or indirectly, make

any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted

with the facts of the case as to dissuade him/her from

disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

(iii) that the appellant shall not act in any manner which will

be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and

(iv) that the appellant shall appear before the trial Court on

each and every date given to him by the said Court till

disposal of the trial.

Sd/-

(Rajani Dubey) Judge pkd