Vijay Sharma vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 878 Chatt

                                                                NAFR

       HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                      CRA No. 1525 of 2021

   1. Vijay Sharma, S/o Late Ratanlal Sharma Aged About 48
      Years R/o Mahavir Swami Chowk Kawardha, Police Station
      And Tehsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh.

   2. Kailash Chandravanshi S/o Komal Chandravanshi Aged
      About 39 Years R/o Kanjheta, Police Station Pandatarai,
      Tehsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh.

                                                      ---- Appellants

                               Versus

   1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Kawardha,
      District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh.

   2. Arun Kumar Meshram S/o Shyamdas Meshram Aged About
      49 Years Incharge Officer Collector Office, Kawardha,
      District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh.   ---- Respondents

For Appellants :- Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate.

For Respondent-State :- Mr. Sunil Otwani, Addl.A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment On Board

21/02/2022

1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 439 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail to

the appellants who have been arrested in connection with

Crime No.824/2021 , registered at Police Station Kawardha,

District - Kabirdham C.G. for the offence punishable under

Sections 186, 294, 506 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(द)(ध) of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled

Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989/ Amendment Act,

2015.

2. This appeal has 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), Kabirdham C.G. dated 11.11.2021.

3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 20.9.2021

appellants entered in the office of complainant and abused

him in the name of his caste for making Ration card.

Thereafter, the offence was registered.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the

appellants have falsely been implicated in crime in question.

He would further submit that appellants are in jail since

26.10.2021, therefore, they may be enlarged on bail.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the bail

application and submits that the appellants are hardcore

criminals and against Vijay Sharma, 8 criminal cases are

registered and against Kailash Chandravanshi, 6 cases are

registered and even they have misused the liberty granted in

pursuance of the parole order passed by the Session Judge

that they are required to surrender on 08.2.2021. Even on

rejection of the interim protection order by the High Court the

appellants have not surrendered so they have misused the

liberty, considering the previous criminal antecedents of the appellants, this is not a good case for grant of bail, therefore,

prays that their appeal be dismissed.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that there are

pending cases registered against the appellants such

grounds cannot be the basis for refusal of prayer of bail and

for this he placed reliance in the matter of Prabhakar

Tewari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh And Anr. passed by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court, [(2020) 11 SCC 648].

7. Replying to the aforesaid objection learned Mr. Senior

Advocate for the appellants submit that the Session Judge

granted parole in pursuance to the Hon'ble Supreme Court

order passed in SMW(C) No. 1/2020 dated 16.07.2021

passed the order that the person who have granted parole

shall not surrender until the further order, therefore, they

have not misused their liberty granted on parole. Further

submitting that the cases registered against the appellants

as the appellants are political public figure, therefore,

against the irregularities by the Public Functionary they have

made protest, therefore, all the cases registered against

them relates to such agitation and appellants in some of the

cases have already been acquitted and in all cases they

have been granted bail.

8. Having considered the submission and nature of the

allegation particularly considering the fact that the

complainant himself sent a complaint to Police Station Ajak,

Kabirdham vide Collector (Food Section) Kabirdham letter

number 662 dated 21.9.2021 in which there is no allegation about the offence has been mentioned on the ground of

SC/ST Act and the other offences are bailable in nature as

also appellants are in jail since 26.10.2021, therefore, this

Court is of the view that present is a good case for granting

bail to the appellants.

9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. It is directed that

appellants be released on bail on each of them executing a

personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety for

the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. They are

directed to appear before the trial Court on each and every

date given by the said Court.

Certified copy as per rules

SD/-

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

Ayushi