Chattisgarh High Court

Shafiq Ahmad vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 June, 2025

                                       1

                                           Digitally
                                           signed by
                                           BHOLA
                                 BHOLA NATH
                                 NATH KHATAI
                                 KHATAI Date:
                                        2025.06.11
                                           18:57:24
                                           +0530




                                                                 NAFR

          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                         CRA No. 924 of 2025

Shafiq Ahmad S/o Rafiq Ahmad Aged About 48 Years R/o Village
Kanchanpur, P.S. Sakti District - Sakti Chhattisgarh
                                                       ... Appellant
                                 versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
Sakti, District - Sakti Chhattisgarh (Wrongly Written As District Janjgir-
Champa In The Impugned Order)
                                                       ... Respondent

For Appellant : Mr. Arham Siddiqui, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. A.G. For Complainant/Objector : Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board

10.06.2025

1. This appeal u/s 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short "the SC/ST

Act") has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated

03.05.2025 passed by the Special Judge, SC & ST (P.A.) Act,

District janjgir-Champa whereby the anticipatory bail application

filed by the appellant apprehending his arrest in connection with

Crime No.131/2025 registered at Police Station Sakti, District

Sakti (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(3),

115(2) of BNS and Sections 3(2), 5(1) & 3(1)(द)(ध) of SC/ST Act

has been rejected.

2. The case of prosecution, in short, is that on the date of incident

i.e. 24/04/2025 at around 1:00 pm, complainant Raja Dharmendra

Singh went to see his land situated behind the shop of

Kanchanpur Sudama Pareek. where appellant Shafiq Ahmed

came and beat him with hands and fists. He himself belongs to

the tribal caste, which appellant Shafiq Ahmed knows since

childhood. He abused the complainant on caste and obscene

terms by saying that you are a tribal-Gond and you belong to a

lower caste and threatened to kill and throw him away. On the

report of the complainant, a crime was registered at Police

Station, Sakti. Anticipatory bail application has been filed by the

appellant apprehending his arrest in the said crime.

3. Learned counsel for appellant Shafiq Ahmed argues that the

complainant is a member of the Zila Panchayat and an influential

person of the royal family. There is a land dispute between them.

The appellant has also received a notice under Section-170 (B) of

the Land Revenue Code, while he has been in possession of the

disputed land since purchasing it. To evict him, a report was first

lodged against him on 21/04/2025 by the complainant party, in

which he was released on bail. Thereafter, on 24/04/2025, the

complainant party came to his land and assaulted and abused

him, on which his wife reported to the police station, then the

Police gave information of पुलिस द्वारा हस्तक्षेप अयोग्य अपराध

(Annexure-A6) and no action was taken on his report, whereas

the crime was registered on the report of the complainant party.

According to the affidavit Annexure-A8 filled by complainant

Dharmendra Singh for the election, there have been a total of 6

criminal cases against him. According to his information,

Dharmendra Singh has been convicted in case No. 26/2023 by

the Special Court FTC, Sakti under Section 376 of the Indian

Penal Code and the POCSO Act. The legal process is being

misused by the complainant party on the basis of the influence of

being a member of the royal family and a member of the District

Panchayat. A false report has been filed on 24/04/2025, just 3

days after the report dated 21/04/2025, whereas the complainant

party itself came to his land and interfered and beat him up. In

such a situation, when the appellant is also a respectable person

and the complainant party is implicating him in a false case by

misusing the legal process and taking advantage of his caste, the

bar of section 18 of the Special Act does not apply. He has full

apprehension of his arrest. The order in question passed by the

trial Court is erroneous. Therefore, the order in question should be

quashed and the appellant should be given the benefit of

anticipatory bail.

4. Since offence under SC/ST Act is also registered against the

appellant, notice was issued to the complainant, pursuant to

which he has been produced before this Court today from Central

Jail, Bilaspur by Constable No.1153, Vijay Kumar Raj of Police

Line - Bilaspur. The complainant was heard. He raised his

objection in granting anticipatory bail to the appellant. The

complainant now be sent back to the concerned jail.

5. Learned counsel for the complainant/Objector Dharmendra Singh,

while presenting written objection to the appeal, has argued that

the complainant has the Bhoo Adhikar Pustika (land rights book)

of the disputed property. The land is registered in his name. The

appellant himself has accepted of receiving notice regarding that

land under section-170 (B) of Land Revenue Code. The appellant

repeatedly comes to the land and interferes. The appellant also

abused and assaulted the secretary of complainant on

21/04/2025, a report of which was lodged by the Secretary

Rohtash Chandra Dohre. Again on 24/04/2025, the appellant

came to his land and quarreled, assaulted, abused him on caste

and obscene basis and threatened to kill him. He submits that the

appellant is not eligible for anticipatory bail, the order of the trial

court in question is appropriate and therefore, the appeal should

be dismissed.

6. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, opposing the

anticipatory bail, submits that a case of atrocity is made out

against the appellant and he is not eligible for grant of anticipatory

bail under section 18 of the Atrocities Act. Hence, the appeal

should be dismissed.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Subhash Kashinath

Mahajan vs. State of Maharashtra and another reported in

(2018) 6 SCC 454, has considered that bar under Section 18 of

the SC/ST Act to be not absolute and if the person is able to show

that prima facie he has not committed any atrocity, allegation is

motivated, mala fide, there is no justification for applying Section

18 of the SC/ST Act in such cases, and held thus:

"50. We have no quarrel with the proposition laid down in the said judgment that persons committing offences under the Atrocities Act ought not to be granted anticipatory bail in the same manner in which the anticipatory bail is granted in other cases punishable with similar sentence. Still, the question remains whether in cases where there is no prima facie case under the Act, bar under Section 18 operates can be considered. We are unable to read the said judgment as laying down that exclusion is applicable to such situations. If a person is able to show that, prima facie, he has not committed any atrocity against a member of SC and ST and that the allegation was mala fide and prima facie false and that prima facie no case was made out, we do not see any justification for applying Section 18 in such cases. Consideration in the mind of this Court in Balothia (1995 3 SCC 221) is that the perpetrators of atrocities should not be granted anticipatory bail so that they may not terrorise the victims. Consistent with this view, it can certainly be said that innocent persons against whom there was no prima facie case or patently false case cannot be subjected to the same treatment as the persons who are prima facie perpetrators of the crime.

51. In view of the decisions in Vilas Pandurang Pawar (2012 8 SCC 795) and Shakuntla Devi (2014 15 SCC

521), the learned ASG has rightly stated that there is no absolute bar to grant anticipatory bail if no prima facie case is made out inspite of validity of Section 18 of the Atrocities Act being upheld.

53. It is well settled that a statute is to be read in the context of the background and its object. Instead of literal

interpretation, the court may, in the present context, prefer purposive interpretation to achieve the object of law. Doctrine of proportionality is well known for advancing the object of Articles 14 and 21. A procedural penal provision affecting liberty of citizen must be read consistent with the concept of fairness and reasonableness.

55. In the present context, wisdom of legislature in creating an offence cannot be questioned but individual justice is a judicial function depending on facts. As a policy, anticipatory bail may be excluded but exclusion cannot be intended to apply where a patently mala fide version is put forward. Courts have inherent jurisdiction to do justice and this jurisdiction cannot be intended to be excluded. Thus, exclusion of Court's jurisdiction is not to be read as absolute."

9. From perusal of the entire facts, it is clear that there is a dispute

between the two parties regarding land, which is registered in the

name of the complainant in the Bhoo Adhikar Pustika, but the

appellant also has a sale deed of the said land. According to the

affidavit of the complainant himself (Annexure - A8), total 6

criminal cases are registered against him. The appellant has been

granted bail on the report filed by the Secretary of the complainant

on the incident of 21/04/2025 regarding the said land and only 3

days after that, on 24/04/2025, a crime has been registered

against the appellant on the report of the complainant himself,

whereas on the report made by the wife of the appellant regarding

the incident of the same date, the Police has given information of

पुलिस द्वारा हस्तक्षेप अयोग्य अपराध (Annexure-A6). Keeping all these

facts in view, in the light of aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case in

which the appellant should be extended the benefit of anticipatory

bail.

10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated

03.05.2025 is set aside. It is directed that in the event of arrest of

the appellant in connection with the aforesaid crime number, he

shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the

sum of Rs.25,000/- with one local surety for the like sum to the

satisfaction of the concerned arresting/investigating officer, with

the following terms and conditions:

(i) that the appellant shall make himself/herself 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;