Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Aloka Dutta vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 26 August, 2025
Author: Parth Prateem Sahu
Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu
1
SYED
ROSHAN
ZAMIR ALI
Digitally 2025:CGHC:43467
signed by
SYED
ROSHAN
ZAMIR ALI NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 1636 of 2025
1. Smt. Aloka Dutta W/o Mrinal Kant Dutta Aged About 47 Years
2. Ku. Priya Dutta D/o Mrinal Kant Dutta, aged about 25 years.
3. Ashish Dutta S/o Mrinal Kant Dutta, aged about 27 years.
All are R/o Village Jawaharnagar, P.S. And Tahsil- Balrampur,
District Balrampur-Ramanujganj C.G.
... Appellants
versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police
Station - Balrampur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj C.G.
... Respondent
For Appellants : Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. Sanjeev Pandey, Dy. Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
Order On Board
26/8/2025
1. This criminal appeal under Section 14 (A) (2) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (henceforth 'the Act of 1989') has been
preferred against the order dated 1.8.2025 passed by learned
Special Judge (SC & ST Act), Balrampur at Ramanujganj in
Bail Application No.396/2025 rejecting application of
appellants for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with
Crime No.104/2025 registered at Police Station Balrampur, for
commission of offence punishable under Sections 296,
115(2), 117(2), 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
and Section 3 (1) (n) (/k) of the Act of 1989.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant had
made encroachment on government land and was running a
shop, against which applicant No.1 filed an application before
the Sub-Divisional Magistrate for removing encroachment.
Said application was allowed and pursuant thereto
complainant has removed the shop. However, some articles
were lying still there and on the date of incident, when
appellants were removing part of shop of complainant, the
same was objected by complainant and thereafter applicants
have abused her in the name of caste and also assaulted her.
On the aforesaid allegations, FIR is registered against
appellants.
3. Learned counsel for appellants would submit that all the
offences are bailable except the offence under the provisions
of the Act of 1989. From the allegations as appearing in FIR,
offence under the provision of the Act of 1989 would not be
attracted. There is no specific mention of caste by which
complainant was abused. Place of incident is not the public
place. Hence, this appeal be allowed and appellants be
released on bail. In support of his submission, he places
reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs. Union of India & ors reported
in (2020) 4 SCC 727.
4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the prayer
for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that in the statement
of complainant recorded under Section 180 of BNS there is
specific allegation against appellants of abusing the
complainant in the name of her caste. He also contended that
all appellants participated in commission of crime in question.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. Perusal of copy of FIR would show that offence under
Sections 296, 115(2), 117(2), 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 was registered against appellants and during
course of investigation, offence under Section 3 (1) (n) (/k) of
the Act of 1989. Upon query being put to learned State
Counsel as to allegation about abusing the complainant in the
name of her caste, he submits that it is only against appellant
No.3 in the statement of complainant recorded under Section
180 of BNS. FIR was lodged based on written report by
complainant in which there are allegations of abusing in filthy
language and by caste also. He further submits that there is
no specific mention of caste but only about abusing by caste.
7. Grant of anticipatory bail is barred under Section 18 and 18-A
of the Act of 1989. However, if the complaint does not make
out a prima facie for applicability of the provisions of the Act of
1989, the bar created under Section 18 and 18A of the Act of
1989 shall not apply. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
Prathvi Raj Chouhan (supra) has observed thus:-
"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.
32. As far as the provision of Section 18-A 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
emphasis 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 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."
8. From the submissions made by learned counsel for
respective parties, it is apparent that in written complaint or
FIR there is no mention of abusing by applicant in the name
of caste of complainant and even allegation of abusing by
caste is against appellant No.3 only.
9. Taking into consideration the nature of allegations, the entirety
of the facts and material available in the case diary, without
commenting anything on merits of case, I am not inclined to
grant anticipatory bail to appellant No.3. Therefore, this
appeal so far as it relates to appellant No.3 is concerned, it is
dismissed.
10. However, considering that appellant No.1 and 2 are female
and there is no specific allegation of abusing the complainant
in the name of her caste and in light of decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in case Prathvi Raj Chouhan (supra), I am
inclined to grant anticipatory bail to appellant No.1 and 2
herein.
11. Accordingly, this appeal so far as it relates to appellant No.1
and 2 is concerned, it is allowed. It is directed that in the event
of arrest of appellant No.1 Smt. Aloka Dutta and appellant No.2-
Ku. Priya Dutta in connection with the crime in question, they shall
be released on anticipatory bail by the officer arresting them on
their executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each
with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned
Investigating Officer. They shall also abide by following
conditions :
(i) that they shall make themselves available for
interrogation before the Investigating Officer as and
when required;
(ii) that 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to
any police officer;
(iii) that the applicants shall not act, in any manner, which
will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and
(iv) that the applicants shall appear before the trial Court on
each and every date given to him by the said Court till
disposal of the trial.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
roshan/-
