Jalesh Kulmitra vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 2787 Chatt

                                                                                             NAFR
             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                           CRA No. 503 of 2022
     • Jalesh Kulmitra S/o Shri Maliram Aged About 55 Years R/o Village-
       Devarhat, Tahsil And P.S. - Lalpur, District- Mungeli (C.G.)

                                                                                   ---- Appellant.

                                              Versus

     • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Sho, Police Station- Ajak, Mungeli,
       District- Mungeli (C.G.)                         --- Respondent.

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

         For Appellant                       :        Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan
         For Respondent/State                :        Mr. Sudhir Sahu, PL.
         For Objector                        :        Mr. Anchal Matre, Adv.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board 27.04.2022

The accused/appellant has filed this appeal under Section 14

(A) (2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the "SC/ST Act") for grant of

anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.01/2022 registered at

Police Station Ajak, District Mungeli for the offence punishable under

Sections 3 (1) (r), (s) of the SC/ST Act.

2. In brief, prosecution case is that when the complainant has

gone to Choice Center for getting his Ayushman Card at that time

present applicant and other villagers were also present adjacent to the

tailor shop, there some altercation took place with present applicant

and the appellant abused the complainant in the name of his caste

therefore, the complainant lodged the FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has

been falsely implicated in the case. It is submitted that police after due

investigation earlier has closed the report. He has also annexed letter

dated 11.01.2022 obtained through RTI, Office of SP, Mungeli which was sent to Superintendent of Police, District Mungeli by SHO, PS

Lalpur, District Mungeli, forwarded though SDOP, Lormi, in which it is

stated that the false complaint has been made due to some previous

election dispute and enmity. It is further submitted that the appellant is

reputed person and he is ready to abide by all direction and conditions

imposed on him, if this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel and counsel for the objector

opposes the prayer for bail. Learned counsel for the objector puts forth

his vehement opposition to the prayer for bail and submits that there is

bar under Section 18 and 18-A of the SC/ST Act therefore, appellant's

anticipatory bail is liable to be rejected.

Countering the said submission, learned counsel for the

appellant submits that the incident was took place very suddenly only

because of some altercation and nothing caste based atrocity has

been done by the appellant. Only because the complainant belongs to

particular caste, he misused the law to implicate the appellant

therefore, on such score is not attracted. He referred to the judgment

passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India

Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2020) 4 SCC 761, wherein, it

has been held in para 7 as under:-

"7. Section 18 of the 1989 Act has been enacted to take care of an inherent deterrence and to instil a sense of protection amongst the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It is submitted that any dilution of the same would shake the very objective of the mechanism to prevent the offences of atrocities. The directions issued would cause a miscarriage of justice even in deserving cases. With a view to object apprehended misuse of the law, no such direction can be issued. In case there is no prima facie case made out under the 1989 Act, anticipatory bail can be granted. The same was granted in the case in question also."

5. Having heard rival submission of learned counsel for the parties

and taking into consideration the earlier investigation report dated

11.01.2022 sent to SP, District Mungeli duly forwarded by SDOP,

Lormi in which it has been clearly opined that a false complaint has

been made by the complainant; and thereafter again FIR has been

lodged under the offence of SC/ST Act, in these circumstances,

without commenting on merits of the case, this Court is of the view that

the appellant can be granted anticipatory bail.

6. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and it is directed that in the

event of arrest of the appellant, on his furnishing a personal bond in

the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the

satisfaction of the arresting Officer, he shall be released on bail on the

following conditions:-

(a) he shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required,

(b) he 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 or to any police officer,

(c) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial,

(d) he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial,

(e) he shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future.

Sd/-

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Ajay