Chattisgarh High Court
Roshan Singh Thakur vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 June, 2022
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 653 of 2022
1. Roshan Singh Thakur S/o Shri Kailash Singh Aged About 36 Years R/
o House No. 131, Ward No. 3, Sardar Prem Singh Gali, Post Office
Pali, District Korba, Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
2. Gaurav Singh Thakur S/o Shri Kailash Singh Aged About 34 Years R/o
House No. 131, Ward No. 3, Sardar Prem Singh Gali, Post Office Pali,
District Korba, Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
---- Appellants.
Versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
Pali, District Korba, Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Appellants : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Adv.
For Respondent/State : Mr. Alok Nigam, GA.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari
Order On Board
17.06.2022
The accused/appellants have filed this appeal under Section 14
(A) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "the SC/ST Act") for grant of anticipatory
bail in connection with Crime No.59/2022 registered at Police Station
Pali, District Korba for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 34,
341, 427 & 506 of IPC and Sections 3 (1) (s) of the SC/ST Act.
2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 26.02.2022 at about 8 PM
when the complainant Shrikant Sonkar was returning from the coal
mines at Budbud after maintenance of his loader machine, at that time,
near barrier 10-12 boys including the present appellants were
standing. It is further alleged that they stopped the Scoprio Car of the
complainant and started filthy abuses in the name of his caste and in
the name of mother and sister and also damaged his vehicle.
Thereafter, the complainant identified the present appellants and on
that basis FIR has been lodged on 11.03.2022.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants
are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case. Counsel
further submits that on the date of incident the appellant Gaurav Singh
who was engaged as a guard in blasting field of mines was doing his
work to get people out from there and for that reasons the complainant
and other persons along with him assaulted the appellant Gaurav by
using hands and fists and also threatened to kill him. This appellant
has also lodged an FIR to this effect on 11.03.2022 against the
complainant and 3 other persons. Counsel further submits appellant
Roshan Singh Thakur was not present at the spot; FIR was lodged
very belatedly and no sufficient reason was mentioned therein.
Counsel contended that the complainant does not belong to the
Scheduled Caste community as he has not produced permanent caste
certificate and the victim used title Sonkar which does not came under
the said category. It is further contended that title Sonkar comes under
the caste Sonar which is reflected from an advertisement enclosed
with the petition dated 29.07.2021 declared by Tahsildar Pali published
in daily newspaper in which one member of the same community does
not belong Scheduled Caste category. It is submitted that dispute did
not arise because of particular caste or community but as a counter
blast the false story was developed. Therefore, considering all these
aspects, the appellants may be granted anticipatory bail.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for bail.
State counsel draws attention of this Court to the report of SDO,
Kathghora and pointed out that the complainant and the accused
persons are belonging to different parties and they are fighting since
long for their leadership in their area. Learned State counsel also
submits that there is bar under Section 18 and 18-A of the SC/ST Act.
The complainant also present in person before this Court and strongly
opposes the bail application and submits that permanent caste
certificate has been issued in his favour.
5. The Supreme in the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of
India, (2020) 4 SCC 727 has held in paragraph 31 as under:-
"31. These facts, in my opinion ought to be kept in
mind by courts which have to try and deal with
offences under the Act. It is important to keep oneself
reminded that while sometimes (perhaps mostly in
urban areas) false accusations are made, those are not
necessarily reflective of the prevailing and widespread
social prejudices against members of these oppressed
classes. Significantly, the amendment of 2016, in the
expanded definition of "atrocity", also lists pernicious
practices (under Section 3) including forcing the eating
of inedible matter, dumping of excreta near the homes
or in the neighbourhood of members of such
communities and several other forms of humiliation,
which members of such Scheduled Caste communities
are subjected to. All these considerations far outweigh
the petitioners' concern that innocent individuals would
be subjected to what are described as arbitrary
processes of investigation and legal proceedings,
without adequate safeguards. The right to a trial with all
attendant safeguards are available to those accused of
committing offences under the Act; they remain
unchanged by the enactment of the amendment."
In the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the
matter of Union of India Vs. State of Maharashtra and others,
(2020) 4 SCC 761, wherein, it has been held thus in para 7:-
"7. Section 18 of the 1989 Act has been enacted
to take care of an inherent deterrence and to instil
a sense of protection amongst the members of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It is
submitted that any dilution of the same would
shake the very objective of the mechanism to
prevent the offences of atrocities. The directions
issued would cause a miscarriage of justice even
in deserving cases. With a view to object
apprehended misuse of the law, no such direction
can be issued. In case there is no prima facie
case made out under the 1989 Act, anticipatory
bail can be granted. The same was granted in the
case in question also."
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, considering the
nature of allegation against the present appellants particularly,
considering that incident took place on 26.02.2022 but the FIR report
has been lodged belatedly on 11.03.2022; considering that counter
FIR has also been registered by the appellant No.2 against the
complainant; considering that all other offences except offence of
Atrocities are bailable in nature; the police report itself shows that at
mines area for different vested interest the complainant and the
appellants were having dispute which reflects that they were having
prior dispute and judgments referred to above, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the accused/appellants can be granted
anticipatory bail.
6. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and it is directed that in the
event of arrest of the appellants, on heir furnishing a personal bond in
the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one two sureties each for the like sum to
the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, they shall be released on bail
on the following conditions:-
(a) they shall make himself available for interrogation by a police
officer as and when required,
(b) 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 fact to the Court or to any police
officer,
(c) they shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date
given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial,
(d) they shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in
future.
Sd/-
(Deepak Kumar Tiwari)
Judge
Ajay
