High CourtsSingle Bench

Anurag Singh Chauhan vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh High Court · Decided on 14 December 2021 · Citation: (2021) 12 CHH CK 0038

HON’BLE JUDGES
Goutam Bhaduri, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 3 (1)(?), 3(1)(?), 14A(2), 18 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 294, 323, 506 · Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Appeal No. 1240 Of 2021
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 290 words
1.

The present appeal is arising out of order dated 29-9-2021 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, in Bail Petition No.739/2021.

2.

The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act, 1989') for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. as he apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.05/2021, registered at Police Station Ajak (Anusuchit Jati Kalyan) Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (CG) for offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(द) (ध) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

3.

As per the prosecution case, on 22/10/2020 when the relative of the complainant was dashed by motorcycle, on such incident the applicant abused the complainant in the name of the caste, thereby offence is committed.

4.

Learned counsel for the appellant would submits that it is a counter blast to the earlier report made by the applicant, therefore false implication have been made and he referred to Annexure A-2 and would submit that under the circumstances false allegation have been made, therefore, the appellant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

5.

Per contra, learned State counsel and counsel for the objector opposes grant of anticipatory bail.

6.

Learned State counsel read out the FIR and the statement of the complainant.

7.

Having considered the same, prima facie it would show that bar of Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 would come into play so as to grant anticipatory bail.

8.

In view of this, the appeal fails and the order of the learned court below dated 29/09/2021 is affirmed.