Chattisgarh High Court
Sonulal Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 15 February, 2023
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 113 of 2023
• Sonulal Sahu S/o Bahoran Sahu Aged About 56 Years R/o Village-
Khairatkhurd, Tahsil - Bagbahara, Police Station- Komakhan, District-
Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
Versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station-
Komakhan, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
For Appellant : Shri Atanu Ghosh, Advocate
For State : Shri Adil Minhaj, Govt. Adv.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
Order On Board
15/02/2023
This appeal arises out of impugned order dated 29/12/2022 passed in
B.A. No.10921/2022 whereby the learned Special Judge (Atrocities Act),
District - Mahasamund (CG) has rejected application under Section 438 of
CrPC filed by the appellant.
2. The appellant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime
No.176/2022 registered at Police Station - Komakhan, District -
Mahasamund (C.G.) for alleged commission of offences under Section 294,
323, 506 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of SC / ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989.
3. Prosecution case, in brief, is that when the complainant along with his
friends were eating chaat in Dayaram's Chaat Thela, the appellant abused
him with caste words and caused injuries to him.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that apart from the sections
of the Special Act, all the other sections are bailable in nature and from
perusal of the FIR, case under the Special Act is not made out as there was
no intention on the part of the applicant to commit such crime knowingly. He
submits that when it is established, prima facie no case is made out, bar
under Section 18 and 18-A of the Special Act would not be applicable. He
placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Prathvi
Raj Chauhan v. Union of India and ors., (2020) 4 SCC 727.
5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer and
submits that a written report was lodged by the complainant regarding he
being abused by the appellant with caste words and during the investigation,
evidence has been collected and from the evidence and FIR, prima facie
case under the Special Act is made out and bar under Section 18 and 18-A of
the Special Act would be applicable. It is further submitted that Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan (Supra) has held as
under -
"32. As far as the provision of Section 18A and anticipatory bail is
concerned, the judgment of Mishra, J, has stated that in cases where
no prima facie materials exist warranting arrest in a complaint, the
court has the inherent power to direct a pre-arrest bail.
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."
6. The complainant/ victim - Kanhaiyalal Mohrey appeared through V.C.
from the concerned DLSA and objected to grant of anticipatory bail to the
appellant.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival
submissions.
8. It is true that from the perusal of the FIR and other material, no prima
facie case is made out and bar under Section 18 and 18-A of the special Act
would not come in the way of granting anticipatory bail, however, Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan (supra), has
categorically stated that the power of grant of anticipatory bail has to be
exercised sparingly. I have gone through the FIR and prima facie, looking to
the FIR and other evidence, I am of the view that bar under Section 18 and
Section 18-A of the Special Act would be applicable. Therefore, I do not find
any exceptional case for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant. The
appeal has no merits and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Certified copy as per rules. Sd/-
(Sachin Singh Rajput )
Judge
Deepti
