Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashvendra Chhabra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 September, 2021
Author: Anil Verma
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
CR. A. No. 4370 / 2021
ASHVENDRA CHHABRA Vs. STATE OF MP AND ANOTHER
--- 1 ---
INDORE, Dated : 21/09/2021
Heard through video conferencing.
Mr. Shivendra Pandey, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Ms. Seema Maheshwari, learned PL for the respondent
- State.
This first appeal u/s. 14-A(1) of the Scheduled castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
read with Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
is directed against the order dated 19/7/2021 passed by
Special Judge, SC / ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
Rajgarh in B.A.No. 73/2021.
As per the prosecution story, on 2/7/2021, complainant
has lodged a Dehati Nalishi at P.S. Lima Chouhan to the
effect that he purchased Motorcycle HF Deluxe from Rishi
Bikes Showroom Sarangpur, which was financed and one
installment was remaining to be paid. On 2/7/2021 at about
8:00 a.m. while he along with his parents, was working on
the Well, three persons came on a motorcycle and asked for
payment of installment. The complainant talked to the
present applicant on mobile phone and asked for more time
till 4:00 pm., The present applicant allegedly told the three
persons to bring the complainant to showroom and they took
him to the showroom. Inside the showroom the present
applicant abused him, beat him and allegedly used casteist
words. Then he became unconscious and regained
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
CR. A. No. 4370 / 2021
ASHVENDRA CHHABRA Vs. STATE OF MP AND ANOTHER
--- 2 ---
consciousness in the Hospital. Accordingly, offence has been
registered against the present applicant and other persons.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that present
applicant is an innocent person and has been implicated
falsely in this offence. FIR is highly suspicious, place of
alleged incident is situated in the territorial jurisdiction of
P.S. Sarangpur, while Dehati Nalishi was registered at P.S.
Lima Chouhan. It is undisputed that complainant purchased a
motorcycle from the showroom which belongs to the present
applicant. Said motorcycle was financed and one out of two
installments of Rs.18,500/- was supposed to be paid on
30/4/2019 which was never paid. Inspite of giving several
telephone and personal reminders to the complainant, he was
delaying the payment of installment, therefore, the applicant
was trying to get the custody of the motorcycle till the
complainant would deposit the due amount. At the time of
incident, complainant reached the showroom and asked the
applicant to waive the balance amount and to let him keep
the motorcycle to which the present applicant denied and
asked to bring the motorcycle or pay the amount. But the
applicant lodged false and misleading FIR against him.
Ingredients of offence u/S. 3(1)(r) of the SC / ST (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sec. 365 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 are not made out. There is no criminal
antecedents against the present applicant. He is a heart
patient. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
CR. A. No. 4370 / 2021
ASHVENDRA CHHABRA Vs. STATE OF MP AND ANOTHER
--- 3 ---
upon the judgment delivered by the apex Court in the case of
Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand (Cr.A.No. 707/2020)
and in the case of Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan Vs. State
of Maharashtra (Cr.A.No. 416 /2018). In these
circumstances, learned counsel for the applicant has prayed
for setting aside of the impugned order and grant of
anticipatory bail to the present appellant.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent - State
opposes this appeal and prays for its rejection by submitting
that for the offence u/S.3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the
SC / ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 there is no
provision for grant of anticipatory bail.
Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the
impugned order of the trial Court as well as the case diary.
After perusal of the case diary and the statement
recorded u/S. 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
of the prosecution witnesses and other relevant papers
available in the case diary, it reveals that at the time of
incident present applicant specifically mentioned the caste of
the complainant and also used casteist words, therefore,
reliance placed by the learned counsel for the applicant on
the judgment delivered by the apex Court in the case of
Hitesh Verma (supra) and in the case of Dr. Subhash
Kashinath Mahajan (supra), is not applicable in the present
case.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
CR. A. No. 4370 / 2021
ASHVENDRA CHHABRA Vs. STATE OF MP AND ANOTHER
--- 4 ---
the case and the nature and gravity of the allegations and in
view of the fact that there is prima facie evidence available
on record regarding commission of aforementioned offences,
the scope of Sec. 18 of the SC / ST (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989 read with Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 is such that it creates a specific bar in
granting anticipatory bail in the offences relating to SC / ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. At this stage, without
commenting upon the merits of the case, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the present applicant does not
deserve for grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the
present appeal is dismissed.
Certified copy, as per Rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
KR
Digitally signed by KAMAL RATHORE
Date: 2021.09.22 11:07:57 +05'30'
