Chattisgarh High Court
Shekhar Aapte vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 5 August, 2022
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 1035 of 2022
1. Shekhar Aapte S/o Shri Ganesh Aapte, aged about 39 years
Occupation: Agriculture, R/o Village: Sarga, Post: Gersa, Police
Station And Tehsil: Sitapur, District: Surguja Chhattisgarh.
2. Ganesh Aapte S/o Shri Bhagirathi Aapte, aged about 56 years
Occupation: Agriculture, R/o Village: Sarga, Post: Gersa, Police
Station And Tehsil: Sitapur, District: Surguja Chhattisgarh.
3. Manoj Kumar Aapte S/o Narhari Prasad Aapte, aged about 30 years
R/o Village: Sarga , Post: Gersa, Police Station And Tehsil: Sitapur,
District: Surguja Chhattisgarh.
4. Ravindra Kumar Aapte S/o Roopmano Aapte, aged about 51 years
Occupation: Service, R/o Village: Sarga , Post: Gersa, Police Station
And Tehsil: Sitapur, District: Surguja Chhattisgarh.
5. Santosh Prasad Aapte S/o Ganesh Prasad Aapte, aged about 35 years
Occupation: Agriculture, R/o Village: Sarga , Post: Gersa, Police
Station And Tehsil: Sitapur, District: Surguja Chhattisgarh.
6. Deepak Aapte S/o Trilochan Aapte, aged about 33 years, R/o Village:
Sarga, Post: Gersa, Police Station And Tehsil: Sitapur, District: Surguja
Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellants
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, Police Station:
Sitapur, District: Surguja Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
_____________________________________________________________
For Appellants : Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Ms. Richa Shukla, Dy. G.A.
For Objector : Mr. Ramsajiwan, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
Judgment On Board
05.08.2022
1. Complainant of this case is present before this Court today. On
being asked, they have raised objection in regard to grant of
anticipatory bail to the appellants.
2. This appeal has been preferred under Section 14(A)(ii) of the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 against impugned order dated 16.06.2022
passed by learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Ambikapur, District :
Surguja (C.G.) in Bail Application No. 554 of 2022, whereby the Trial
Court has rejected anticipatory bail application of the appellants
preferred under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. which relates to Crime
Number: 172 of 2022, registered at Police Station: Sitapur, District:
Surguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148,
149, 294, 506, 323 of IPC and Section 3 (i) (R) and 3 (i) (S), 3 (ii) (v) (a)
of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989.
3. According to the case of prosecution, on 09.06.2022, the
complainant Shivkumar Kujur on being invited for birthday
celebration went to the house of his friend Mukesh Painkra. After
having dinner when they were sitting, at 09:00 P.M., the present
appellants came there and caught hold the complainant and took
him near Gram-Gersa and there they assaulted the victim with their
hand and fist and also gave death threats to him. Thereafter, the
appellants brought back the victim in the house of the co-accused
Ravindra Kumar Aapte and there they tied him with the help of
towel. After sometime, the appellants released the victim after
assaulting him and after giving death threats. On the basis of said,
offence has been registered. Thereafter, the appellants filed an
application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. before learned Special
Judge (Atrocities) Ambikapur, District: Surguja (C.G.) and the said
has been rejected by the learned Special Judge vide order dated
16.06.2022. Hence, this appeal.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits
that the appellants are innocent and are falsely implicated in the
present case. He submits that the incident is said to have been
occurred at night on 09:00 P.M, therefore, it cannot be said that the
incident took place in the public view, as defined in Section itself. He
further submit that there were some previous enmity between both
the parties due to which this incident took place between them. He
further submits that no offence under the Atrocities Act can be
made out against the present appellants because the caste was not
the genesis of offence and no caste related abusive words were
used by the present appellants. He further submits that except the
offence under Special Act, all the other offences are bailable in
nature, charge-sheet has not been filed and trial will take some
time, therefore, it is prayed that the appellants may be granted
anticipatory bail.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State as
well as for the Objector opposes the appeal. They submitted that
the injury sustained by the complainant is grievous in nature and the
bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act would be attracted.
Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.
7. After perusal of the contents of FIR, the case diary and further
looking to the injuries sustained by the complainant and the act
committed by the appellants, also looking to the bar under Section
18 of the Special Act, this Court is of the opinion that the appellants
should not be enlarged on bail.
8. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(Sachin Singh Rajput)
Judge
Saurabh
