Chattisgarh High Court
Milan Kumar Samal vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 30 September, 2021
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 901 of 2021
• Milan Kumar Samal S/o Upendra Kumar Samal aged about 29
Years R/o Village and Post Dhola, Police Station Nikirai, District
Kendupada, Orrisa. At Present R/o Branch Manager, Bank of
Maharastra, Branch Mahasamund, District Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
------Appellant
VERSUS
• State of Chhattisgarh through: Police Station Pithora, District
Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
-------Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. P.N. Bharat, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Keshav Dewangan, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. Vimlesh Bajpai, Govt. Adv.
Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
ORDER ON BOARD
30/09/2021
1. This appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Caste &
Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities Act) 1989 arises out of
rejection of application for anticipatory bail vide order dated
13.08.2021 filed under Section 438 of CrPC in connection with
crime bearing no. 196/2021, registered at Police Station- Pithora,
District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh, for offence defined under
Sections 306, 420 of IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of Scheduled Caste
& Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities Act) 1989.
2. As per the case of prosecution, that on 06.08.2021, Alharam
committed suicide in his house. The said Incident was reported to
concerned police station by Ramkumar Baghel son of Alharam.
During the course of merg enquiry, police seized one suicide note
from spot levelling allegations against present appellant of
demanding money and also withdrawal of money from his bank
account without his permission as also threatening. Based on the
merg enquiry and contents of suicide note, aforementioned crime
was registered against appellant.
3. Mr. P.N. Bharat, learned senior counsel for appellant would submit
that the deceased Alharam was working as bank collection agent
since 2017. Appellant is working as bank manager and posted at
concerned Branch in the year 2018. Deceased was having total six
accounts in his name in which three were loan accounts, one current
account having maximum limit of Rs. 85,000/- and two saving
accounts. The current account managed by the deceased is to
reconcile with the collection and disbursement of the amount to the
customers of the bank which was inducted through him and the
amount is being collected from them by the deceased. On
30.07.2021, current account suffered deficit of Rs. 50,000/-, hence,
deceased himself has stated to the appellant to withdraw the amount
of Rs. 50,000/- from his account and to deposit the same in the bank
account. The transaction of Rs. 50,000/- as alleged against the
appellant to have been fraudulently withdrawn is for the purpose of
bank. By withdrawal of Rs. 50,000/- applicant is not benefited in any
manner but the said amount has been deposited in the bank. He
further submits that as the appellant is not benefited in any manner,
the offence under Section 420 of IPC would not be attracted against
him. It is further contended that there is no ingredient available in the
case diary to attract offence under Section 306 of IPC as well. There
is no allegation of abetment. Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act,1989 has
been charged only because the deceased belonged to reserved
categor, there is no allegation against appellant that any offence is
committed by the appellant only because deceased belonged to
reserved category. The Court below dismissed the application for
grant of anticipatory bail holding that in view of bar under Section 18
of SC/ST Act, 1989, anticipatory bail application would not be
maintainable. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India
and others reported in (2020) 4 SCC 727 and submits that in
exceptional circumstances application for anticipatory bail can be
considered by High Court. Unless and until there is specific
allegation of offence committed only on the ground that complainant
belongs to a particular caste, offence under Section 3(2)(V) of the
SC/ST Act, 1989 will not be attracted, hence, bar under Section 18
of the SC/ST Act,1989 will not be attracted in this case and
application for grant of anticipatory bail can be considered.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Vimlesh Bajpai, learned State counsel
opposing the submissions made by learned counsel for appellant
would submit that the allegation against appellant is that the
appellant withdrawn Rs. 50,000/- from the account of deceased
through unsigned cheque. The cheque was not signed by the
deceased. He also pointed out that the amount of Rs. 50,000/- was
not deposited in the bank account but the cash amount was
withdrawn through cheque bearing number 341732. It is also pointed
out that the cheque book in the name of deceased was issued on
the same day ie. 30.07.2021 when the amount of Rs. 50,000/- was
withdrawn through unsigned cheque. The application for issuance of
cheque book was also not signed by the deceased, hence, there is
prima facie involvement of appellant in commission of offence under
Section 420 IPC. He submits that in view of bar under Section 18 of
SC/ST Act, 1989, the Court below has rightly dismissed the bail
application to be not maintainable.
5. I have heard learned counsel for respective parties.
6. Sofar as, the submission made by learned Senior counsel with
respect to maintainability of anticipatory bail application is
concerned, though the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act,
1989 is registered against applicant but there is no allegation that
the appellant has committed any offence only because deceased
belonged to particular caste. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
Dinesh alias Buddha v. State of Rajashtan, (2006) 3 SCC 771,
while dealing with Section 3(2)(v) of the Act of 1989 has held thus:
"15. Sine qua non for application of
Section 3(2)(v) is that an offence must
have been committed against a person on
the ground that such person is a member
of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes. In the instant case no evidence
has been led to establish this requirement.
It is not case of the prosecution that the
rape was committed on the victim since
she was a member of Scheduled Caste. In
the absence of evidence to that effect,
Section 3(2)(v) has no application. Had
Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act been
applicable then by operation of law, the
sentence would have been imprisonment
for life and fine."
7. In view of rulings of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Dinesh alias
Buddha (supra) and Prathvi Raj Chauhan (supra), application for
grant of anticipatory bail can be considered and bar under Section
18 of the SC/ST Act, 1989 would not be attracted to the facts of
present case.
8. Sofar as, the submission of learned Senior counsel with respect to
no offence is made out under Section 420 IPC is concerned, the
material collected by the investigating agency after registration of
crime through Bank as argued by counsel for State that the cheque
was dated 30.07.2021 which was not signed by deceased/ the
account holder and further the amount of Rs. 50,000/- has been
withdrawn in cash and not deposited in the bank account as
submitted by learned senior counsel. The other submission of
learned State counsel is that the cheque book was issued on the
same date without there being any request application by the
deceased/ account holder for issuance of cheque book.
9. Considering the aforementioned facts and material available in the
case diary, I do not find it a fit case to enlarge the applicant on
anticipatory bail.
10. Accordingly, application for grant of anticipatory bail is dismissed.
11. At this stage, learned senior counsel for appellant submits that
appellant has submitted application form for appearing in UPSC
examination, the date of examination is stated to be on 10 th October
2021 for which admit card is also placed on record, hence some
limited protection be given.
12. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for appellant,
it is directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against appellant
for a period of two weeks from today. Thereafter, appellant shall
surrender before the Court of competent jurisdiction.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
Pawan
