Sunil Rishi vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 876 Chatt

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 876 Chatt
Judgement Date : 21 February, 2022

Chattisgarh High Court

Sunil Rishi vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 21 February, 2022

                                                                  NAFR

         HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                         CRA No. 44 of 2022

   1. Sunil Rishi S/o Mulkraj Rishi Aged About 59 Years

   2. Karan Rishi S/o Sunil Rishi Aged About 32 Years

     Both are R/o Mangla Chowk, Bypass Road Bilaspur, Police Station
     Civil Lines, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

                                                          ---- Appellants

                               Versus

    State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police
     Station Civil Lines, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

                                                        ---- Respondent

CRA No. 40 of 2022

1. Sunil Rishi S/o Mulkraj Rishi Aged About 59 Years

2. Karan Rishi S/o Sunil Rishi Aged About 32 Years

Both are R/o Mangla Chowk, Bypass Road Bilaspur, Police Station-Civil Lines, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Appellants

Versus

 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station-Civil Lines, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent

For Appellants :- Ms. Fouzia Mirza, Senior Advocate with Mr. Navin Shukla , Advocate For Respondent-State :- Mr. Sameer Oraon, G.A. For Objector :- Mr. Vijay K. Sahu, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment On Board 21.2.2022

1. Since in both the appeals appellants are one and the same, they

are being heard and decided by this common order.

2. The appellants have preferred these appeals for grant of

anticipatory bail, as they apprehend their arrest in connection with

Crime Nos. 1384/2021 and 1385/2021 respectively registered at

Police Station Civil Lines, District - Bilaspur C.G. for the offence

punishable under Sections 294, 427, 506/34 of the I.P.C. and

Section 3(1)(v), 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

3. These appeals have been preferred under Section 14-A of the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act, 1989 against the order passed by the Special Judge

(Atrocities), Bilaspur C.G. dated 24.12.2021.

4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that appellants have hurled

obscene abuses and threatened to kill the complainant with an

intention of insulting and intimidating in the name of caste and also

damaged their boundary wall.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there was a

boundary dispute for which WPC No.30/2022 has already been

filed and the matter has been settled vide order dated 06.1.2022

by directing for demarcation. The above case was purely of civil

nature and a fresh demarcation has been ordered. The dispute,

was not due to the complainant belonging to be of a particular

community, so the bar of the anticipatory bail does not attract in a

particular case. Learned counsel further submits that anti atrocities

law was initially enacted with the laudable purpose of protecting

persons hailing from that particular community of any abuse or harassment of caste supremacy. Learned counsel for the

appellants referring to the judgments passed by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the matters of Hitesh Verma Vs. State of

Uttarakhand, [(2020) 10 SCC 710] and Ramawatar Vs. State of

Madhya Pradesh, [(2021) SCC Online SC 966], prays for grant of

anticipatory bail.

6. Learned counsel for the objector opposes the bail applications.

Counsel for the objector submits that the complainant had

purchased the land adjoining to the applicant's land and started

construction on the said land after all necessary clearance required

from the concerned Municipal Corporation. On 05.12.2021,

appellants came in the construction land and threatened the

complainant by saying that how you can build your house near

ours and abused him in the name of caste and started an

argument. The land of the complainant has already been

demarked since 2019 and a copy of demarcation report has

already been annexed. Learned counsel further submits that insult

in the name of caste is social evil and have grievous effect,

therefore, appellants are not entitled to be granted anticipatory bail.

7. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the bail application.

Learned counsel for the State strongly relied upon the fact that the

Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act, 1989 (for short "the Act") is barred in anticipatory bail and in

the present case a bare reading of the FIR, shows that the offence

attracts, therefore, this is not a good case for grant of anticipatory

bail. He further submits that Section 18 A of the Act bars the

application itself, therefore, this application is not maintainable for

anticipatory bail.

8. In the matter of Hitesh Verma (Supra), it was held by the

Supreme Court that a property dispute between a vulnerable

section of the society and a person of upper caste would not attract

an offence under the SC/ST Act, unless the allegations are on

account of the victim being a Scheduled caste. It was observed

thus in para 16 :

"There is a dispute about the possession of the land which is the subject matter of civil dispute between the parties as per Respondent No.2 herself. Due to dispute, the appellant and others were not permitting Respondent 2 to cultivate the land for the last six months. Since the matter is regarding possession of property pending before the civil court, any dispute arising on account of possession of the said property would not disclose an offence under the Act unless the victim is abused, intimidated or harassed only for the reason that she belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe."

Further, in the matter of Ramawatar (Supra), it was observed by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 19 as under:

"Firstly, the very purpose behind Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST is to deter caste-based insults and intimidations when they are used with the intention of demeaning a victim on account of he/she belonging to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community. In the present case, the record manifests that there was an undeniable pre-existing civil dispute between the parties...... "

XXX

9. Having considered the fact and circumstances of the case and also

considering the fact that it was a boundary dispute as also the law

laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of

Ramawatar (Supra) and Hitesh Verma (Supra), this Court is of the view that it is a good case to grant anticipatory bail to the

appellants.

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

set-aside.

11.The appellants are directed to be released on anticipatory bail on

each of them furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/-

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

Officer with the following conditions:

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

(ii) 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.