Rajaram Patel vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2023 Latest Caselaw 312 Chatt

                                                                                       NAFR

                  HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                            Criminal Appeal No. 1721 of 2022

                               Order reserved on 09.12.2022

                             Order pronounced on 16.01.2023

      Rajaram Patel, aged about 58 years, Son of Chhedua Ram Patel, Resident of Village
      Paladi Khurd, Police Station - Sakti, District Sakti (CG)      --- Appellant
                                           Versus

      State Of CG through District Magistrate - Janjgir-Champa (Police Station Baradwar),
      District - Sakti, (CG)                                      ---Respondent

___________________________________________________________________________

For Applicant : Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. G.P. Kurrey, Panel Lawyer For Objector/Complainant : Mr. Paras Mani Shriwas, Advocate ___________________________________________________________________________ CAV Order Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

1. This appeal under section 14A of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the "Special Act") is arising out of an order dated 27.10.2022 passed by Special Judge (Atrocities), District - Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) (for short Special Judge) in B.P. No. 944/22 by which the learned Spe- cial Judge has dismissed the application of the appellant under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Appellant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 256/2022, registered at Police Station - Baradwar, District - Sakti (C.G.) for the alleged offence punishable under sections 294, 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and section 3 (2) (va) of the Special Act.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 06.09.2022 the present appellant by using filthy language threatened the complainant and further abused complainant by his caste and thereby committed the aforesaid offence.

3. Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and he has not committed the aforesaid crime and has been falsely impli- cated in the case. He further submits that the alleged incident took place on 06.09.2022 and the FIR was lodged on 30.09.2022 after a considerable delay. It is also submitted that appellant being Ex-Sapanch of village Paladi Khurd had made many complaints against the complainant as he was working as Hostel Superintendent in the said village. Wife of the appellant and villagers have also made various complaints against the complainant. He invited my attentions to documents in this regard appended with the appeal. He submits that the complainant had earlier threatened the appellant and his wife to implicate them in a false case under Special Act. Therefore, in order to save himself, the complainant has lodged a false report. He further submits that apart from the offences registered Special Act, rest of the offences are bailable in nature. He further submits that the appellant is a permanent resident of given address and he is ready and willing to comply with any of the conditions which may be imposed by the court while granting anticipatory bail. He placed reliance on the judg- ment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs. Union of India reported in (2020) 4 SCC 727, order dated 12.03.2021 passed by coordinate bench of this court in CRA No. 992 of 2020 (Sonal Chand Vs. State of Chhattis- garh), and order dated 18.04.2022 passed in CRA No. 604 of 2022 (Javed Khan Vs. State of Chhattisgarh).

4. Refuting to the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. G.P. Kurrey, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/state vehemently argued that on the basis of the statements of the witnesses recorded during the course of investigation it is established that the appellant has committed the crime alleged. He further submits that the complainant made a written report on 06.09.2022 and thereafter the FIR was registered hence there is no delay in lodging the FIR. He further submits that bar under section 18 of the Special Act would operate and therefore, the appeal may be dismissed. Mr. Paras Mani Shriwas learned counsel for the objector/complainant also opposes the prayer of the appellant. On 23.11.2022 the complainant also objected to grant of anticipatory bail.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions.

6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan (Supra) held as under:-

"32 As far as the provision of Section 18A and anticipatory bail is con- cerned, 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."

7. In the case of Sonal Chand (Supra) the benefit of anticipatory bail was extended to appellant relying upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Khuman Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 2019 SC 4030) and Dinesh alias Buddha Vs. State of Rajasthan (2006) 3 SCC 771, and in the matter of Javed Khan (Supra) the coordinate bench of this court also allowed the appeal and granted anticipatory bail for offences registered under the special Act more or less similar to the nature of allegation to the case in hand.

8. In the light of the above legal principles and looking to facts and circumstances of the case, considering the nature of allegation, perusal of FIR and submissions of counsel for the respective parties, this court is inclined to allow the appeal of the appellants. Therefore, the impugned order dated 27.10.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, is hereby set aside. The appeal is allowed and it is directed that in the event of their arrest, the appellant shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of the like sum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer/arresting officer on the following conditions:-

(i) 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/her from disclosing such fact to the Court,

(ii) He shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial,

(iii) He shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial.

(iv) He shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required and will appear before the investigating officer on 30.01.2023 for cooperating in the investigation.

9. It is made clear that the observation made herein above is only for the purpose of decision making of the bail applications of the applicant and to appreciate the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. It will not have any bearing on the merits of the case. The learned trial court will decide the case on it own merits without being influenced by any observation made herein above. If the applicant violates any of the conditions stated above, state/complainant would be free to move for cancellation of bail.

10.     Certified copy as per rules.                                   Sd/-

                                                               Sachin Singh Rajput
                                                                      Judge
Jyotishi