Sanjeev Kumar Kashyap vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 3326 Chatt

                                        1

                                                                           NAFR

               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                             CRA No. 635 of 2022

   • Sanjeev Kumar Kashyap S/o Dhaniram Kashyap Aged About 32 Years
     R/o Village Birra, Ward No. 16, Dau Mohalla, P.S. Birra, Tehsil -
     Bumnidih, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

                                                                   ---- Appellant

                                      Versus

   • State Of Chhattisgarh Through- District Magistrate, Janjgir (Station
     House Officer- Birra) District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.)

                                                                ---- Respondent

For Appellant : Shri Chitendra Singh, Advocate.

For Respondent     : Shri BP Banjare, Deputy GA.
For Objector       : Ms. Rajni Soren, Advocate.



                    Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J

                               Order On Board

09/05/2022 :

1. The appellant has preferred this Appeal under Section 14-A of the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Amendment Act (henceforth 'the Act') being aggrieved by the order

dated 1.4.2022 passed by the Special Judge under the Act whereby

his application for grant of anticipatory bail has been rejected.

2. The appellant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime

No.45/2022, registered at Police Station Birra, District Janjgir Champa

for offences punishable under Section 294 & 506 of the IPC and

Section 3(2)(va) of the Act.

3. Prosecution case is that complainant Mohan Das was working as

Cashier in the Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Branch Birra

where the appellant came to the bank for withdrawing Rs.50,000/- with

a withdrawal slip of his father, who is paralyzed and as such he was

unable to come to the bank. Initially the appellant after verifying the

specimen signature marked for passing of the payment and even the

Branch Manager of the concerned Bank has again verified it and for

disbursing the payment withdrawal slip was again sent to the counter

of the Cashier where the present appellant was posted, but the

appellant after verification with the complainant has wrongly assumed

that his father has come in the car and his father has in fact not come,

therefore, refused to disburse the amount and thereafter some

altercation took place between the complainant and the present

appellant wherein the appellant has also abused in the name of his

caste and threatened to kill the complainant. On such allegations, a

written complaint was made on 8.1.2022 to the Police Station Birra

and the FIR was registered on 22nd March, 2022 for the aforesaid

offence.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant has

been falsely implicated. At the time of incident bank staff and

customers were also present. In support of the Appeal, he has filed

an affidavit of the Peon of the concerned branch namely, Dilip

Chandrakar and one of the customers namely Ramdayal to the effect

that no such incident has taken place as alleged by the complainant.

Learned counsel also submits that the complainant has demanded

illegal money for passing the payment and when the appellant refused

to give such illegal money, some altercation took place. At that time

the complainant also threatened to falsely implicate the appellant in an

atrocities case. Therefore, the appellant made a complaint to the

Collector, Janjgir and also lodged the FIR against the complainant at

Police Station Birra on 22nd March, 2022, for offence under Sections

294 and 506 of the IPC. Therefore, the appellant may be released on

anticipatory bail and the Appeal may be allowed.

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

Objector strongly oppose the bail application and submit that the

complainant is posted in the Branch for the last 7 years. As the

appellant falsely stated that his father was sitting in the car outside the

bank at the time of payment, when he enquired the said fact,

statement of the appellant was found to be false, therefore, the

payment was refused. Learned counsel also submit that the

complainant has again verified the signatures through on-line mode

and on cross-checking, the Objector confirmed that signature on the

withdrawal slip was not of account holder Dhaniram Kashyap, father of

the appellant. Therefore, the appellant has committed the act of

forgery and the appellant abused the complainant in front of the

public. Therefore, in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India Vs. State of

Maharashtra {(2020) 4 SCC 761} and also the bar under Section 18

of the Act, the appellant is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail and

the Appeal may be dismissed.

6. Learned counsel for the Objector also submits that earlier the amount

was withdrawn after re-verification as per the guidelines issued by the

Head Office of the District Cooperative Bank on 26.7.2021.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the

record. The incident took place on 3.1.2022 and the written complaint

was made after 5 days i.e. on 8.1.2022 though the Police Station is

situated at the same place where the bank is located. The Branch

Manager of the District Cooperative Bank has also made a complaint

on 12.1.2022 to the SHO, Police Station Birra, which is shown by

learned counsel for the Objector to this Court in which there was no

mention that any act of forgery has been committed by the appellant

about false signature, as alleged by the complainant in his complaint.

The appellant has also raised an issue that his payment was earlier

passed by the complainant himself and also the Branch Manager and

only the release of payment was required and at that moment, the

complainant has demanded illegal money. When the appellant

refused, some altercation took place. Learned counsel also makes a

submission that while going to the bank for the purpose of withdrawal,

the bank officials normally do not aware as to the caste of his staff and

the customer is only concerned with the money. The bank officials

normally do not indulge in any kind of dispute. Learned counsel also

submits that as the complainant himself misbehaved with the

appellant which also attracts the offence and the police has duly

registered the offence against the complainant also. Therefore, the

appellant has a strong case as one of the staff of the bank has stated

on oath in favour of the appellant.

8. In Laxmi Narayan Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh (CRA No. 1556 of

2021 decided on 7 February, 2022 C.G. High Court), this Court

observed that in cases where prima facie, it shows that the appellant

has a strong case to be contested in his defence benefit of

anticipatory bail should be extended, and placed reliance on Prathvi

Raj Chauhan v. Union of India and others (2020) 4 SCC 727, and

following was observed :

8. The issue arising for consideration is whether the anticipatory bail application would be maintainable in view of bar under Section 18 of the Act of 1989. This legal issue is no longer res-integra in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India and others (2020) 4 SCC 727 wherein the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the maintainability of application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., in the matter of allegation of offence under the Act of 1989. "11. Concerning the applicability of provisions of section 438 CrPC, it shall not apply to the cases under the 1989 Act. However, if the complaint does not make out a prima facie case for applicability of the provisions of the 1989 Act, the bar created by Section 18 and 18-A(i) shall not apply. We have clarified this aspect while deciding the review petitions.

33. I would only add a caveat with the observation and emphasize that while considering any application seeking pre- arrest bail, the High Court has to balance the two interests: i.e., that the power is not so used as to convert the jurisdiction into that under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, but that it is used sparingly and such orders made in very exceptional cases where no prima facie offence is made out as shown in the FIR, and further also that if such orders are not made in those classes of cases, the result would inevitably be a miscarriage of justice or abuse of process of law. I consider such stringent terms, otherwise contrary to the philosophy of bail, absolutely essential, because a liberal use of the power to grant

pre-arrest bail would defeat the intention of Parliament".

9. Considering the aforesaid principle and also considering that the FIR

was registered belatedly i.e. after 19 days of the incident and even the

complainant himself filed a written complaint after 5 days of the

incident, this Court is of the view that the appellant has a strong case

for his defence to be contested. Hence this Court finds appropriate to

enlarge the appellant on anticipatory bail.

10. Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed and it is directed that in the event of

arrest of the appellant, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his

executing 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) he shall not influence the witnesses during trial.

(ii) he shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(iii) 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 facts to the Court or to any police officer.

11. It is made clear that if any offenence of forgery is found during

investigation after examination of the withdrawal slip, then this order

granting anticipatory bail in favour of the appellant shall automatically

stand cancelled without further reference to the Bench.

Sd/-

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Barve