Maniram Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 881 Chatt

                                                              NAFR

      HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                       CRA No. 75 of 2022

  1. Maniram Yadav S/o Ramlal Yadav Aged About 71 Years ,
     Caste Yadav

  2. Khikhram Kashyap S/o Late Biharilal, Aged About 69 Years
     Caste Kurmi

  3. Chandulal Kashyap S/o Late Shriram Kashyap, Aged About
     72 Years

     All R/o Misda. P.S. - Nawagarh, District - Janjgir- Champa
     (C.G.)

                                                      ---- Appellants

                             Versus

    State Of Chhattisgarh Through- District Magistrate, Janjgir-
     Champa, P.S.- AJAK, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

                                                    ---- Respondent

For Appellants :- Mr. Amarnath Pandey, Advocate For Respondent-State :- Mr. Anurag Verma, PL For Objector :- Mr. C.P. Lahrey, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment On Board

21/02/2022

1. The appellants have preferred this appeal for grant of

anticipatory bail, as they apprehend their arrest in

connection with Crime No.8/2021 registered at Police

Station Ajak, District- Janjgir Champa C.G. for the offence

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

Section 3 (i) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2. This appeal has been preferred under Section 14-A

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the order passed by the Special

Judge (Atrocities), Janjgir-Champa C.G. dated 21.12.2021.

3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 02.9.2021 the

appellants with common object threatened the complainant

and hurled caste line abuse.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the appellant

has falsely been implicated in crime in question. He would

further submit that the Police has enquired the matter and a

preliminary enquiry report of AJAK Police Station Janjgir

dated 19.9.2021 has been filed in which it has been

mentioned that there was a dispute about encroachment of

Government land, therefore, no cognizable offence is made

out and Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 does not attracts,

hence, they may be granted anticipatory bail.

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

the objector opposes the anticipatory bail application.

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

allegation; particularly considering the preliminary enquiry

report of the Police Station, AJAK Janjgir, therefore, without

commenting anything on merit, this Court is inclined grant

anticipatory bail to the appellant.

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

is set-aside.

8. 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.

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

Certified copy as per rules.

Sd/-

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

Ayushi