High CourtsSingle Bench

Ashish Tiwari vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh High Court · Decided on 5 April 2023 · Citation: (2023) 04 CHH CK 0006

HON’BLE JUDGES
Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 3(2)(v), 14A(2) · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 376(2)(n), 506
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Appeal No. 505 Of 2023
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

9 paragraphs · 414 words
1.

The appellant has preferred this Appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’) for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.581/2022, registered at Police Station Tikrapara, District Raipur for offence under Sections 376 (2)(<) & 506 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act.

2.

At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that earlier the appellant was enlarged on anticipatory bail vide order dated 23.1.2023 passed in MCRCA No.1550/2022 for offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of the IPC, though at that time, offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act has already been added, but inadvertently, the said fact could not be brought to the notice of the Court and the order was passed without considering the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act. As the appellant had reasonable apprehension to be arrested under the aforesaid Act, he has preferred an application for grant of anticipatory bail before the Special Judge (Atrocities), Raipur and the same was dismissed vide order 16.2.2023. Hence present Appeal has been filed.

3.

Learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that the appellant and the complainant have already compromised the matter and the appellant has been falsely roped in the offence and that he has already been enlarged on anticipatory bail on similar facts. Considering all the aspects, he may be released on anticipatory bail.

4.

On the other hand, learned State Counsel would oppose the bail application. However, despite service, none appears on behalf of the prosecutrix.

5.

Considering the fact that the appellant has already been released on anticipatory bail, this Court is inclined to release the appellant on anticipatory bail in the present case also.

6.

Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the appellant, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer with the following conditions:-

(i) he shall not influence the witnesses during trial.

(ii) he shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(iii) he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.