Chattisgarh High Court
Ramkhilawan Vaishnav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 22 March, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:13760
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Order Reserved on 31.01.2025
Order delivered on 22.03.2025
CRA No. 2139 of 2024
1 - Ramkhilawan Vaishnav S/o Bhusan Das Aged About 66 Years R/o Village
Limtara P.S. Masturi District - Bilaspur (C.G.)
2 - Yogendra Vaishnav S/o Ramkhilawan Aged About 45 Years R/o Village
Limtara P.S. Masturi District - Bilaspur (C.G.)
... Appellant(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer Police Station
Schedule Cast Schedule Tribe Welfare Bilaspur District - Bilaspur (C.G.)
----Respondent
For Appellant : Ms. Manisha Yadav, Adv.
For State : Mr. Karan Bahrani, P.L.
For Objector : Ms. Gunjan Tiwari, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge
CAV Order
1. This criminal appeal filed under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled
Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989,
(for short, 'Act of 1989') against order dated 21.11.2024 passed
by learned Special Judge (Atrocities) Bilaspur District Bilaspur
(CG) whereby an application filed by the appellant under Section
482 of Bharatiay Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI JHA
Date:
2025.03.22
16:19:46
+0530
dismissed.
2. Appellant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime
No.5/2024 registered at Police Station -Schedule Caste
Schedule Tribe Welfare, Bilaspur, (CG), for the offence
punishable under Sections 296, 3(5), 351(2) of BNSS and
Sections 3(1)(r) & 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 05.08.2024, at
morning 8-9 am when complainant had been to field for work at
that time the appellant caught hold her hand and started uttered
filthy language. Further she being member of Scheduled Caste &
Scheduled Tribe and the appellants had accused her by her
caste and threaten her for life. The complainant filed a written
report and on the basis of said written report, offences under
Section 296, 3(5), 351(2) of BNSS and Sections 3(1)(r) & 3(1)
(s) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been registered against the appellants.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants
name are recorded in revenue record of the land situated in the
village bearing Khasra No-788/01 area 0.09 Acre and Khasra
No-788/02 area 0.09 Acre. On demarcation it was found that the
husband of the complainant had encroached over the land to
which they approach before Tehsildar and Tehsildar pass order
in favour of the appellants under section 250 of CG Land
Revenue Code. Further vide order dated 02/04/2024, the
Tehsildar has passed the order for removing encroachment over
the land of the appellants. Further appeal preferred by the
husband of the complaintant got dismissed. Therefore due to
such land land dispute between the parties, the complainant has
lodged false, baseless and frivolous complaint against the
appellants. After the order of Tehsildar, the complainant parties
were removed from encroachment but again they forcefully
encroached over the said land of the appellants which is evident
from order issued by the Tehsildar on 26/07/2024 to Station
House Officer of PS- Masturi, Dist- Bilaspur. Even there are two
orders of revenue authorities in favour of the appellants but the
complainant parties on regularly basis abuses and had given
threatening for life to which the appellants had made several
complaints before the concerned Police Station & Collector, but
no action has been taken against them.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the court
below erred in giving finding that the documents relied upon by
the defence (appellants herein) cannot be considered at this
stage as same is matter of evidence because those documents
relied upon by the appellants are the orders issued by the
competent authority under statutory law therefore these are
undisputed and public documents which not required to prove.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants would submits that the
alleged incident happened on 05.08.2024 and FIR has been
registered on 17.08.2024 ie after 12 days of the alleged incident,
which itself justify the version of the appellants that a false and
fabricated report has been lodged against the appellants.
Therefore in such circumstances the court below erred in giving
finding that there is Prima facie case against the appellants.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that vide
complaint dated 13/08/2024 made to Superintendent of police,
the appellants have informed about their apprehension that
complainant parties may implicate them under SC/ST Act, thus,
these facts create a doubt to the contents of alleged crime of
SC/ST Act. Vide Annexure A/7, it has also reflected from the
newspaper cutting that there was land dispute between the
parties. Thus, learned counsel for the appellants prays for grant
of anticipatory bail.
8. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellants
relied upon decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs. Union of India reported in
2020(4) SCC 727 and also in the case of Rahna Jalal v. State
of Kerala reported in 2021 (1) SCC 733.
9. Learned State Counsel opposes the submissions made by
learned counsel for appellant and submits that specific allegation
has been made against them by the complainant in her
complaint, which required inquiry and the investigating agency
has already started investigation. Moreover the appellants are
also absconding and could not be arrested till date. The
allegation of abusing language in the name of caste of the
complainant is leveled against the appellants. Hence, in view of
bar under Section 18 of the Act of 1989 anticipatory bail
application is not maintainable.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the objector opposes the
anticipatory bail application of the appellants.
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
12. Section 3 (1) (r) of the Act, 1989 reads as under;-
Section 3(1) in The Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989:- (1)Whoever, not being a member of a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,--
xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx
(r)intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to
humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;
13. The Supreme Court in the matter of Hitesh Verma Vs. State of
Uttarakhand {(2020) 10 SCC 710} has held thus :-
13. The offence under Section 3 (1) (r) of the Act
would indicate the ingredient of intentional insult and
intimidation with an intent to humiliate a member of a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. All insults or
intimidations to a person will not be an offence under
the Act unless such insult or intimidation is on
account of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe. The object of the Act is to improve
the socio-economic conditions of the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes as they are denied
number of civil rights. Thus, an offence under the Act
would be made out when a member of the
vulnerable section of the Society is subjected to
indignities, humiliations and harassment. The
assertion of title over the land by either of the parties
is not due to either the indignities, humiliations or
harassment. Every citizen has a right to avail their
remedies in accordance with law. Therefore, if the
appellant or his family members have invoked
jurisdiction of the civil court, or that respondent No.2
has invoked the jurisdiction of the civil court, then
the parties are availing their remedies in accordance
with the procedure established by law. Such action
is not for the reason that respondent No.2 is member
of Scheduled Caste.
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)(r) of the Act is not made
out.
14. Further, Supreme Court in the matter of Prathvi Raj Chauhan
Vs. Union of India AIR 2020 Supreme Court 1036 held that
bar created by Sub section 18 and Section 18A against grant of
anticipatory bail in case of atrocity against SC and ST shall not
apply unless prima facie is made out- However in case of misuse
of provisions Court can quash the cases to prevent misuse on
settled parameters.
15. A view has been taken from the judgment of the hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Rahna Jalal v. State of Kerala,
2021(1) SCC 733 and the principles have been reiterated and
explained in para 23 and 25-
23 The provisions of Sections 18 and 18-A have
been interpreted by a three-Judge Bench of this
Court in Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India
[Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India, (2020) 4
SCC 727 Arun Mishra, J. speaking for himself
and Vineet Saran, J. while construing these
provisions, observed that: (SCC p. 751, para 11)
"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 Sections 18 and 18-A(i) shall not
apply. We have clarified this aspect while
deciding the review petitions."
25. Thus, even in the context of legislation, such
as the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, where a bar
is interposed by the provisions of Section 18 and
sub-section (2) of Section 18-A on the application
of Section 438 CrPC, this Court has held that the
bar will not apply where 9 (2021) 1 SCC 733
2022:CGHC:10255 Neutral Citation 10 the
complaint does not make out "a prima facie
case" for the applicability of the provisions of the
Act. A statutory exclusion of the right to access
remedies for bail is construed strictly, for a
purpose. Excluding access to bail as a remedy,
impinges upon human liberty. Hence, the
decision in Chauhan [Prathvi Raj Chauhan v.
Union of India, (2020) 4 SCC 727: (2020) 2 SCC
(Cri) 657] held that the exclusion will not be
attracted where the complaint does not prima
facie indicate a case attracting the applicability of
the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989."
16. A perusal of records shows that parties are resident of same
village and on demarcation, it was found that the husband of the
complainant had encroached over the land to which they
approach before the Tehsildar and Tehasildar passed the order
in favour of the appellants and directed to remove encroachment
over the land of the appellants and thereafter husband of the
complainant preferred an appeal which got dismissed.
Documents also show that both the parties have lodged
complaints against each other with regard to land dispute
between the parties. Thereafter, again complainant party
encroached over the said land of the appellants to which also the
appellants had made several complainants before the concerned
police stations. It is alleged that due to complaint made to the
authorities by the appellants, the appellants have informed about
their apprehension that complainant parties may implicate them
under SC/ST Act since they belongs to SC/ST category and
made a complaint to the Superintendent of police vide complaint
dated 13/08/2024 (Annexure A/6).
17. Aforesaid facts available on record shows that there is animosity
between both the parties in respect of land dispute. Since there is
counter case against each other for alleged incident and
appellants have informed about their apprehension that
complainant may implicate them under SC/ST act, thus these
facts create a doubt to the contents of alleged crime of SC/ST
Act. Moreover, the appellants have approached the Tehsildar for
demarcation of his land and on demarcation, it was found that
husband of the complainant had encroached over the land of the
appellants and the Tehsildar has passed the order for removing
encroachment, to which husband of the complainant filed an
appeal, which got dismissed, thus it prima facie shows that it is
counter blast case, therefore, the bar of Section 18(2) of the
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act) would not be applicable in
this case.
18. Considering the aforesaid facts of the case and also considering
the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Prithvi Raj Chouhan (supra) and Rahna Jalal (supra) and also
considering nature of allegations, submission of counsel for
appellants, this Court is inclined to grant the protection of
anticipatory bail to the appellants.
19. Accordingly, appeal is allowed. Impugned rejection order
21.11.2024 passed by Special Judge, (Atrocities) Bilaspur
(Annexure A-1) is set aside. It is directed that in the event of
arrest by the Police Officer appellants shall be released on bail
upon his furnishing a bail bond in sum of Rs.10,000/- with two
sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Arresting officer
on the following conditions that:-
a) Appellant shall appear before trial Court regularly on
each and every date, unless exempted from appearance.
b) Appellant shall not, in any manner, tamper with the
prosecution witnesses.
c) Appellant shall in any manner will not threaten the
complainant of the case.
d) Appellant will give his full co-operation whenever the
Police Officer will ask him to come for inquiry.
e) Appellant in any manner will take full participation in
resolving the case and will not ask for unnecessary
adjournment.
20. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any
opinion on the merits of the case.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma)
Judge
Jyoti
