Chattisgarh High Court
Raja Dewangan @ Khemraj vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 July, 2022
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 923 of 2022
Raja Dewangan @ Khemraj S/o Anand Kumar Dewangan Aged
About 26 Years R/o Mahatama Gandhi Ward, Dhamtari, Tahsil
And District Dhamtari (C.G.)
---- Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police
Station Nagri District Dhamtari (C.G.)
---- Respondent
For the Applicant : Shri Anil Gulati, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Richa Shukla, Dy. Govt. Advocate
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
Order on Board
25 /07/2022
1. Heard.
2. The present appeal under Section 14-(A) (2) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
is filed being aggrieved by the order dated 27/05/2022 passed
by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Dhamtari (C.G.) in connection
with Crime No. 159/2021 registered at Police Station Nagri,
District Dhamtari (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section
186, 294, 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(n), 3(1)(/k) of Scheduled
Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, by which
the application under Section 438 of CrPC of the applicant
herein was rejected holding it to be not maintainable in view of
the bar of Section 18 & 18 (A)(ii).
3. Case of the prosecution is that the complainant lodged the report
to the police of Police Station Nagri, alleging that he was posted
at Government Hospital situated at Nagri on 29/11/2021, when
he was discharging his duty at that time the applicant brought
two persons for their treatment and in the meantime the
applicant used filthy language and threatened him and prevented
him to discharge his official duty.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that initially when the
FIR was registered on 08/12/2021 the offence under Sections
186, 294, 506 of IPC was registered, subsequently the
provisions of Section 3(1)(n), 3(1)(/k) of Scheduled Caste &
Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act were added. He
further submits that the incident took place on 29/11/2021 and
the FIR was lodged on 08/12/2021, which goes to show that it
was a planned FIR to implicate the present applicant. He further
submits that in view of the fact that nothing on record to show
that the applicant was personally knowing the victim prior to the
incident and also that he belongs to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled
Tribe community. Even otherwise simply it was quarrel took
place on account of the patient which was admitted in the
hospital was not properly taken care of by the victim, therefore,
there might be some scuffle or quarrel might have taken place on
account of the bahaviour of victim but there was no intention on
the part of the applicant to commit an offence under the
provisions of Scheduled Caste Scheduled Tribe Act. He relies on
the judgment of Parthvi Raj Chauhan vs. Union of India
reported in AIR 2020 SC 1036.
5. On the other hand learned State counsel fairly submits that
initially there is delay of lodging FIR. FIR was lodged on
08/12/2021 and for the incident took place on 29/11/2021. She
fairly submits that explanation with regard to delay is not
mentioned in the FIR. And the FIR also does not mentioned that
the victim was subjected to the alleged offence on account of he
being a member of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe
community. However she submits that subsequently the Sections
of Special Act was added. On being asked whether there is any
evidence to show that the applicant was knowing the victim prior
to the incident that the victim belongs to SC/ST community, she
fairly submits that in that regard the diary is not containing any
positive evidence.
6. Heard learned counsel for both sides.
7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case
considering the contents of the FIR when the mentioned of
offence under the Special Act is not there. It is prima facie not
establish from the records as submitted by counsel for the State
that the victim was known to the applicant prior to the incident
that he belongs to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community
and therefore considering the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the matter of Prathvi Raj Chauhan (supra) in my
considered view the provisions of Section 18 and 18(A)(ii) of the
Special Act prima facie would not be a bar in this case to grant of
anticipatory bail, therefore, the appeal is allowed. The impugned
order dated 27/05/2022 is set-aside. It is directed that in the
event of arrest of the applicant in connection with the aforesaid
offence, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal
bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety for the like sum
to the satisfaction of the arresting officer, on the following
conditions:-
(a) he shall make himself available for
interrogation by the concerned police officer
as and when so required.
(b) 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
fact to the Court or to any police officer,
(c) he shall not act in any manner which will
be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial,
(d) After filing of the charge-sheet, he shall
appear before the trial Court on each and
every date given to him by the said Court till
disposal of the trial,
(e) he shall not involve himself in any
offence of similar nature in future
(f) If any of the conditions is violated by the
applicant, the victim / State / complainant will
be at liberty to move an application for
cancellation of bail.
8. It is made clear that these observations are only for the purposes
of deciding the bail application. The trial Court will decide the
case on its own merits without being influenced by any
observation made herein-above.
9. It is directed that the applicant will appear before the
Investigating Officer for co-operating in the investigation on
17/08/2022.
Sd/-
(Sachin Singh Rajput)
Judge
Kamde
