Chattisgarh High Court
Dileshwar Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 January, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:4540
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 37 of 2025
1 - Dileshwar Yadav S/o Mohan Yadav Aged About 46 Years R/o Village
Pathrai, Mainpat, Police Station Kamleshwar, Tahsil Narmadapur, District
Surguja (C.G.)
2 - Rajkumar Yadav S/o Sobharam Yadav Aged About 55 Years R/o Village
Pathrai, Mainpat, Police Station Kamleshwar, Tahsil Narmadapur, District
Surguja (C.G.)
... Appellant(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station Ambikapur, District Surguja
(C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Shri Anurag Singh, Advocate.
For the State : Shri Karan Bahrani, Panel Lawwyer
For the complainant : Shri Amarnath Pandey, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma
Order on Board
24/01/2025
1. The present appeal under Section 14-(A) (2) of the Scheduled Castes
NARESH by
KUMAR KAMDE
and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is filed by
KUMAR Date:
KAMDE 2025.01.28
17:32:39 +0530
the appellants in connection with Crime No. 884/2024 registered at
Police Station Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) for an offence
punishable under Sections 296, 351(2), 3(5) of BNS and Sections 3 (1)
(5),10 of the Scheduled Castes & the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 for grant of anticipatory bail, which has been
rejected by the learned Special Judge, Atrocities (Prevention of
Atrocities Act) 1989, Ambikapur, District- Surguja on 30/12/2024.
2. Complainant who is Anganbadi worker has made a written complaint
before the Police Station against Mohan Yadav and Raj Kumar Yadav
using filthy and caste-related language and was threatened to kill her.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that a civil suit has been
filed by the appellants against the complainant and her family members
before First Civil Judge Class-1, Ambikapur, which is pending
consideration and just to harass the appellants FIR has been lodged
against the them. He further submits that since there is dispute
between appellants and complainant with respect to land, a false case
has been made against them. He submits that earlier also FIR was
lodged by the complainant against the appellants on 19/10/2020 and
there is no evidence or eye witnesses with respect to said incident,
therefore, they may be granted anticipatory bail.
4. Today victim has appeared before this Court through video
conferencing from the concerned DLSA and raised her objection. Her
statement is taken on record.
5. On the other hand learned State counsel as well as counsel for the
complainant have objected the prayer made by the learned counsel for
the appellants. State counsel has pointed out that there is two previous
antecedents against the appellants in which Crime No. 3/2015 in S.T.
No.42/2016 has been convicted by the Special Court, Surguja.
6. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellants contended that this
Court has suspend the sentence and granted bail to the appellants.
7. On perusal of record prima facie case is made out against the
appellants under Scheduled Castes & the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 and Section 18 of the Act specifically
provided that Section 438 of the Code not to apply to persons
committing an offence under the Act. It is also pertinent to mention here
that Section 18 (2) of the Act specifically provides that the provisions of
section 438 i.e. anticipatory bail of the Code shall not apply to a case
under this Act, notwithstanding any judgment or order or direction of
any Court, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case
to enlarge the appellants on anticipatory bail.
8. Accordingly, the bail application of the appellants Dileshwar Yadav
and Rajkumar Yadav filed under Section 14-(A) (2) of the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in
connection with Crime No. 884/2024 registered at Police Station
Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) for an offence punishable under
Sections 296, 351(2), 3(5) of BNS and Sections 3 (1)(5),10 of the
Scheduled Castes & the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989, is rejected.
Sd/-Sd/-Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma)
JUDGE
Kamde
