Chattisgarh High Court
Suraj Buddhdev vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 June, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:22950
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 755 of 2025
1 - Suraj Buddhdev S/o Dipak Buddhdev Aged About 50 Years
R/o Baldev Bagh Police Station Kotwali District - Rajnandgaon
(C.G.).
... Appellant
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Police Station Gandai
District - K.C.G. (C.G.).
... Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate with
Mr. Gopal Swarup Gupta, Adv.
For State : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Order on Board
10/06/2025
1. This appeal has been filed by the accused/appellant under
Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Casts and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, against the order
dated 22.03.2025 passed by learned Special Judge
(Atrocities Act) Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Bail Application No.
139/2025 whereby the bail application filed by the
appellant under Section 482 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 has been
rejected.
2. The appellant is apprehending his arrest in connection with
Crime No.33/2025, registered at Police Station - Gandai,
District-K.C.G. (C.G.) for the offence punishable under
Sections 3-1(r) and 3-1(u) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for
short 'the Act 1989').
3. The facts of the case, in brief, is that the appellant is the
Bureau Chief of Dainik Dawa Newspaper and portal CNI.
Co-accused Baldau Soni and Hitesh Manikpuri are its
correspondents. On 07.09.2024, the word 'Harijan' used in
the newspaper and WhatsApp group, due to which the
complainant party, who is an office bearer of Satnami Sewa
Samiti, KCG, felt insulted and filed a written complaint
with the police, on which Crime No. 33/2025 was
registered in police Station-Gandai, District-KCG under
Section 3-1 (r) and 3-1 (u) of the Atrocities Act.
Apprehending arrest in this case, the appellant presented
an anticipatory bail application before the trial court, which
was dismissed under the order in question.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he had
published the newspaper on the basis of the written
application (Annexure-A-3) of Ramchand, Nehru Das,
Tarachand, Prasadi, Kuleshwar, Uderam, Ramji etc. of the
community of the complainant party and the published
news is related to the Muktidham. At that place also,
according to Annexure-A-4, "the path to Harijan
Muktidham (Daniya)" is mentioned. In publishing the
newspaper, the appellant has no ill intention to insult
anyone on the basis of caste, rather the subject matter is
about the approval of fund from the government for the
construction of Muktidham. The offence under the Special
Act is not made out. The prohibition of Section 18 of the
Special Act does not apply. The 'order in question' of the
trial court is not valid and appropriate in the light of law.
Therefore, the appellant may be granted anticipatory bail.
He placed reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the matters of Hitesh Verma vs. State of
Uttarakhand and Another, reported in (2020) 10 SCC
710, Deepak Kumar Tala vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
and Ors, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 638, Khuman
Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2019 SC 4030
and Shajan Skaria vs. State of Kerala, 2024 SCC OnLine
SC 2249, and on the decision of this Court in the matter of
Sanjay Patel & Ors. Vs. State of C.G., passed in CRA No.
1454 of 2022 on 17.01.2023.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the state opposes
the anticipatory bail application of the appellant and
submits that according to the Government notification, the
use of the word 'Harijan' itself constitutes an offence under
the Special Act and in the light of Section 18 of the Special
Act, anticipatory bail is not acceptable. The order of the
trial court in question is appropriate. Hence, the
application is liable to be dismissed.
6. Today, the complainant appeared through video
conferencing from the concerned DLSA and raised his
objection regarding the grant of bail to the appellant.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Hitesh Verma
(supra) has dealt with the issue pertaining to offence under
the Act, 1989 and held as under:
"18. Therefore, offence under the Act is not
established merely on the fact that the informant
is a member of Scheduled Caste unless there is
an intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled
Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the reason that the
victim belongs to such caste. In the present
case, the parties are litigating over possession of
the land. The allegation of hurling of abuses is
against a person who claims title over the
property. If such person happens to be a
Scheduled Caste, the offence under Section 3(1)
(f) of the Act is not made out."
9. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the matter of
Pavas Sharma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and another
(CRA No. 806/2020, order dated 22.01.2021), has
elaborately dealt with the issue pertaining to offence under
the Act, 1989 and finds that merely because offence under
Section 3(2)(V)(a) of the Act, 1989 was registered against
the applicant, learned court below rejected the application
holding it to be not maintainable in view of the provisions
contained under Section 18 of the Act of 1989, without
taking into consideration the law laid down by the Supreme
Court in the case of Prathvi Raj Chouhan Vs. Union of
India and Others1. Even though, offence under the Act of
1989 is registered, where application for grant of
anticipatory bail is filed, the Court is required to apply its
mind to the relevant provisions of law and considerations
as specified by the Supreme Court in the case of Prathvi
(supra) and if material on record leads to satisfaction that
the complaint does not make out a prima facie case, for
applicability of the provisions of the Act of 1989, the bar
created under Section 18 of the Act of 1989 shall not apply
and in appropriate cases of exceptional nature, benefit of
anticipatory bail could be admitted to the applicant. The
learned Court below committed patent illegality in
mechanically rejecting the bail application. Order of
rejection, therefore, cannot be sustained in law and,
therefore, set aside.
10. After hearing counsel for the parties and considering the
facts and circumstances of the case, and looking to the
material available on record it is evident that the news
published by the appellant in the newspaper Dainik Dawa
is about the estimate approved by the Central Government
1 (2020) 4 SCC 727
for the construction of 'road to Harijan Muktidham'. It is
also evident that the publication of the said news was done
on the application (Annexure-A-3) given by some members
of the community of the complainant party and the board
showing the road to the said Muktidham also mentions the
word Harijan Muktidham.
11. In such a situation, keeping all the above in view and in the
light of above judgments, this Court is of the considered
opinion that it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the
appellant. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. It is directed
that in the event of arrest of the appellant in connection
with aforesaid crime number, he shall be released on bail
on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.25,000/-, with one surety for the like sum to the
satisfaction of the concerned arresting/investigating officer
or the Court concerned, as the case may be, with the
following terms and conditions:
(i) that the appellant shall make herself/himself
available for interrogation/medical test etc. before the
concerned investigating officer as and when required;
(ii) that the appellant shall not, directly or indirectly,
make any inducement, threat or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the case as to dissuade
him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to
any police officer;
(iii) that the appellant shall not act in any manner
which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and
(iv) that the appellant shall appear before the trial Court
on each and every date given to her/him by the said
Court till disposal of the trial.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
H.L. Sahu
