Mohan vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2092 Chatt

                                             1
                                    Cr.A. No. 862 of 2021

                                                                               NAFR
                   HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                        (Proceeding through Video Conferencing)
                                Criminal Appeal No. 862 of 2021
   1. Mohan, S/o. Shobran, aged about 70 years,
   2. Rajkumar Yadav S/o. Shobran, aged about 50 years,
      All above R/o. Village Pathrai, Tahsil Mainpat,                 Police   Station
      Kamleshwarpur, District Surguja (C.G.)
                                                                ---- Appellants
                                       Versus
      State of Chhattisgarh, through: Police Station Kamleshwarpur, Mainpat,
       District Surguja, Chhattisgarh (C.G.)
                                                        ---- Respondent/State

  For Appellants            :       Shri Anurag Singh, Advocate
  For Respondent/State :            Shri Adil Minhaz, Government Advocates
  For Objector              :       Shri Amarnath Pandey, Advocate



                    Hon'ble Shri Justice Gautam Chourdiya, J
                              Judgment on Board

01.09.2021

1. This appeal by the accused/appellants under Section 14(A) of the Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is directed

against the order dated 04.08.2021 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities),

Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) in Bail Application No. 630/2021, rejecting

their regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The appellants have been

arrested in connection with Crime No. 71/2020 for the offence punishable

under Sections 294, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (r) (s)

(g) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, registered at Police Station- Kamleshwarpur, Mainpat,

District Surguja (C.G.).

2. As per prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged by complainant Reeta Ekka that

father of the complainant Linus Ekka is owner of land bearing Khasra No.

16/19 area 0.242, despite knowing the said fact the appellants willingly left

their buffalo for grazing on the land of Linus Ekka and when the complainant

Cr.A. No. 862 of 2021

tried to stop the appellants, they threatened the complainant and even

abused her over their caste.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that due to land dispute, the

present appellants have been falsely implicated by the complainant party.

Their dispute under Section 145 Cr.P.C. is also pending before the S.D.M.

As per applications (Annexure-A/3 & Annexure-A/4) filed by appellant

Mohan before the S.D.M., Sitapur, proceedings under Section 145-146 of

Cr.P.C. are pending wherein stay has been granted in favour of appellant

Mohan and against the complainant party. Though appellant Mohan was

convicted by Special Judge, Surguja vide judgment dated 26.11.2018 but in

appeal, the sentences imposed upon him have been suspended while

releasing him on bail by coordinate bench of this Court. He also submits that

appellant Rajkumar Yadav has no criminal antecedents and appellant Mohan

has one criminal antecedents and he is 70 years old, therefore, the

appellants be released on bail.

4. Learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the objector

oppose the appeal and submit that appellant Mohan repeated the similar

nature of offence.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegation

made against the appellants, offence under Sections 294, 506 R/w 34 of IPC

are bailable except offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, though appellant Mohan has one

criminal antecedents under Sections 447/34, 294, 506B/34 of IPC and

Sections 3 (1) (x), 3 (1) (iv), 3 (1) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, but his conviction under

aforesaid sections his appeal is pending for consideration before this Court

where he has been granted bail, appellant Rajkumar Yadav has no criminal

Cr.A. No. 862 of 2021

antecedents, the detention period of the appellants who are 50 & 70 years

old, due to Covid-19, conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time,

without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the

opinion that present is a fit case for grant of bail to the appellants.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

7. It is directed that in the event of each of the appellants executing a personal

bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- to the

satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, they shall be released on bail on the

following conditions:-

i. they 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 him from disclosing such fact to the Court. ii. they shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial.

iii. they shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial. iv. they shall not involve themselves in any offence of similar nature in future.

v. they shall strictly follow the Covid-19 protocol issued by the Central Govt./State Govt./Local Authority.

Sd/-

(Gautam Chourdiya) Judge vatti