Arpit Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 760 Chatt

                                                              NAFR

      HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                      CRA No. 39 of 2022

    Arpit Sahu S/o Lekhram Sahu Aged About 26 Years R/o B.K.
     Bahra,    Tehsil   Baghbahra,    District  Mahasamund
     Chhattisgarh.

                                                       ---- Appellant

                             Versus

    State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Khallari,
     District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.

                                                    ---- Respondent

For Appellant :- Mr. Shubhank Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent-State :- Mr. Alok Nigam, G.A. For Objector :- Mr. Gaurav Singhal, Advocate Complainant is present virtually through Help Desk, Mahasamund

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment On Board

14/02/2022

1. The appellant has preferred this appeal for grant of

anticipatory bail, as he apprehends his arrest in connection

with Crime No.143/2021 registered at Police Station Khallari,

Mahasamund, District Mahasamund C.G. for the offence

punishable under Sections 294, 506 of the I.P.C. and

Section 3 (ii) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2. This appeal has been preferred under Section 14A (II)

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the order passed by the Special Judge, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund C.G. dated

24.12.2021.

3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant lodged

the complaint stating that the appellant is trying to make

passage in medh for farming purpose with the help of JCB in

his land and has given him life threat. The FIR was lodged

on 13.8.2021.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submit that the appellant

has falsely been implicated in crime in question. He would

further submit that appellant is 26 years old, who is student

of LLB and there is serious family dispute between the

family members of appellant, therefore, he may be granted

anticipatory bail.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel and learned counsel for

the objector opposes the anticipatory bail application and

submit that appellant is a habitual offender.

6. In reply to the above objection, learned counsel for the

appellant submits that in two such cases the witnesses are

same and no other offence against the appellant has been

registered.

7. Having considered the submission of the parties, nature of

allegation as also considering the fact that except offence

under Section 3 (ii) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 all

offences are bailable, further considering the nature of

dispute; the allegation was not made only because the complainant belongs to SC, ST category, it was actually the

land dispute and the proceedings before the competent

authority are pending, therefore, without commenting

anything on merit, this Court is inclined grant anticipatory

bail to the appellant.

8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order

is set-aside.

9. The appellants are directed to be released on anticipatory

bail on furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/-

with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the

Arresting Officer with the following conditions:

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

(ii) 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 facts to the Court or to any police officer.

(iii) he shall not influence the witnesses during pendency of the trial.

Certified copy as per rules.

SD/-

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

Ayushi