Chattisgarh High Court
Gagan Jaipuriya vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 April, 2022
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Cr.A No. 484 of 2022
1. Gagan Jaipuriya S/o Nankdishore, Aged About 38 Years R/o Ward No. 06,
Bamhanidih, District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh.
2. Shivkumar Jaiswal S/o Sonilal Aged About 45 Years R/o Main Road, Bamhaidih,
District Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh. ---- Appellants
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The District Magistrate, District Janjgir Champa
Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent
For Appellants: Shri Shashank Thakur, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1/State : Shri BP Banjare, Dy. G.A.
For Objector: Shri Sanjay Kumar Agrawal, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari
Order on Board
11.04.2022
1. This Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A of the SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (henceforth 'the Act of 1989') is filed against the order dated
03.03.2022 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa
whereby the Appellants' application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C for grant of
anticipatory bail has been rejected.
2. The Appellants are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime
No.02/2022 registered at P.S AJAKS, District Janjgir-Champa (CG) for the offence
punishable under Sections 294, 506 and 323/34 IPC and under Sections 3(2)(V-A),
3(1)(n) & 3(1)(Ä) of the Act of 1989.
3. Prosecution case in brief is that the complainant, Timan Singh Raj who is the
President of Shiksha Prasar Samiti, runs Educational Institutions and it is alleged
that an employee of the Samiti namely Shri SP Tiwari (UDT) has been denied
promotion wrongly and forgery has been committed by the complainant, therefore
Shri Tiwari made a complaint for which, an enquiry committee has been constituted
and the present Appellants were also included as member representatives on the
request of Shri Tiwari and when the report was prepared for which, some
interpolation has been made as per the allegations of the present Appellants, Shri
Tiwari has been declined for his promotion, therefore, after coming the know the said
fact, Shri Tiwari and the present Appellants have raised their voices. Then the
complainant has lodged FIR that the Appellants have abused him in the name of
caste and also threatened to kill him and beaten him, therefore, the aforesaid offence
has been registered.
4. Learned counsel for the Appellants submits that the Appellants are innocent
and have been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He further submits that
the basic ingredients of the offences alleged against the Appellants are not present in
the case in hand and they have been unnecessarily roped in the controversy to settle
the scores only because of the fact that the present Appellants have supported the
valid case of Shri Tiwari, who has been harassed by the complainant and the
management of the society of Shiksha Prasar Samiti, therefore, they may be granted
anticipatory bail.
5. Per contra, learned Counsel for the State and the Objector strongly opposed
the said prayer and submitted that there is bar under Section 18A of the SC/ST Act
for grant of anticipatory bail, therefore, the application deserves to be rejected.
6. Shri Agrawal, learned Counsel for the Objector submits that on 11.02.2022 at
about 2.00 pm, the incident took place for which, certain affidavits of the witnesses
have been annexed. He further submits that the Appellants are habitual offenders
and relied upon the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of
Hariram Bhambhi vs. Satyanarayan & Anr. passed in Criminal Appeal No.1278 of
2021 dated 29.10.2021.
7. In reply, Shri Thakur, learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that there are
two previous antecedents against the present Appellants one pertaining to the year
2014, another to the year 2016 as also one criminal case registered under Sections
147, 148, 149, 294, 506 and 323 IPC was registered on 12.10.2014 and relied upon
Rahna Jalal vs. State of Kerala and Another reported in (2021) 1 SCC 733 wherein, it
is explicitly established that when prima facie case relating to anticipatory bail is
made out, the provision under Section 18-18A is diluted. For ready reference,
paragraphs-22 and 23 are reproduced here under:-
"22. Section 18 explicitly excludes the application
of Section 438 CrPC in relation to any case
involving the arrest of any person on an
accusation of having committed an offence under
the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 18-A
specifically excludes the application of the
provisions of Section 438 CrPC, notwithstanding
any judgment, order or direction of a court.
23. The provisions of Section 18 and 18-A
have been interpreted by a three-judge Bench of
this Court in Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of
India (2020) 4 SCC 727 : (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 657
("Chauhan"). Arun Mishra, J. speaking for himself
and Vineet Saran, J. while construing these
provisions, observed that: (SCC p. 751, para 11)
"11. Concerning the applicability
of provisions of Section 438 CrPC, it shall
not apply to the cases under the 1989 Act.
However, if the complaint does not make
out a prima facie case for applicability of
the provisions of the 1989 Act, the bar
created by Section 18 and 18-A(i) shall not
apply. We have clarified this aspect while
deciding the review petitions"."
8. Even in Hariram Bhambhi vs. Satyanarayan & Anr. (supra) relied upon by
learned Counsel for the Objector, the Supreme Court observed that while passing
the order, the reason must be assigned.
9. Having considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and the
law laid down in Rahna Jalal vs. State of Kerala and Another (supra), the facts of the
present case, the genesis of the incident is denial of the promotion to one of the sub-
ordinates and for which, the Appellants raised voice against the society wherein the
complainant is the President of such society in which, an enquiry has been made
and the Appellants were included as members on the request of the Shri Tiwari, who
is a public representative and after the meeting, certain interpolation in the resolution
has been made, therefore, they have raised voice to suppress it, therefore, looking to
this backdrop, as the offence appears to have been not committed on the basis of
the complainant belonging to a particular category but on account of the
management's denial of the promotion for which, such incident took place, therefore,
I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the Appellants.
10. Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed and it is directed that in the event of the
Appellants' executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs 10,000/- with one surety each
in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, they shall be released on
bail on the following conditions:-
(a) 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 them from disclosing such fact to the
Court.
(b) they shall not act in any manner which will be
prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, and
(c) they shall appear before the trial Court on each
and every date given to them by the said Court till
disposal of the trial.
(d) the Appellants and the surety shall submit a copy of their
adhaar card along with a coloured postcard full size photo having
printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial
Court.
(e) they shall not involve themselves in any offence of
similar nature in future.
11. In view of above, IA No.01/2022, an application for grant of interim bail stands
disposed of.
Sd/-
(Deepak Kumar Tiwari)
Judge
Priya
