Basant Shukla vs State Of Chhattisgarh

The accused/appellant has filed this appeal under Section 14 (A) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “the SC/ST Act”) for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.03/2022 registered at Police Station AJAK, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa for the offence punishable under Sections 294 & 323 of IPC and Sections 3(2) (V-A), 3 (1) (द) & 3(1) (ध) the SC/ST Act.

Prosecution case, in brief, is that the appellant has been retired from the post of Head Constable, Police Station Akalatara on 28.02.2022. During his services, he was investigated one criminal case filed by one Tripal Sahu therefore, the appellant called the complainant Sahdeo Singh Gond who was party in the said case for recording his statement. It was alleged against the appellant that during investigation he had abused the complainant and also beaten him with leg and demanded Rs.10,000/-. Therefore, the FIR was lodged and offences were registered.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He submits that the appellant had bonafidely discharged his duties while he was in services and when the appellant retired from his services, the complainant by using his status lodged the false FIR. Counsel also submits that there was dispute for about a long period between the complainant and Tripal Sahu and his family for which present appellant has filed Instgasha under Sections 107/116 (3) Cr.P.C. for taking preventive action against both the parties before the Executive Magistrate, Janjgir Champa on 26.02.2022, copy of which is annexed with the petition therefore, as a counter blast, the complainant lodged the complaint against the present appellant. Therefore, considering all these aspect the accused/appellant may be enlarged on bail.

Per contra, learned State counsel and counsel for the objector put forth their vehement opposition to the prayer for bail and submits that there is bar under Section 18 and 18-A of the SC/ST Act.

Upon being asked, learned State counsel has fairly submitted that offence was taken on 18.02.2022 place at 12 noon but the FIR has been registered at AJAK Police Station on 1st March, 2022 and there is no diary entry at the Police Station Akalatara that any such atrocity has been committed at the Police Station Akalatara. Even the SHO, AJAK has not intimated such type of incident to the concerned SP and no such material is available in the case diary.

Heard learned counsel for the parties. From perusal of the case, prima faice, it appears that the appellant who was a Police Officer while discharging his duties acted against the complainant and had filed Intgasha because of the dispute between the two private persons and now the appellant is a retired person and there is substantial delay in lodging of FIR, though the offence is  committed within the premises of Police Station Akalatara but the offence has been registered in different Police Station AJAK, therefore, the appellant has strong case to defend himself and the complainant may have used his position and had taken undue benefit and abused the process of law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2020) 4 SCC 761 held thus in para 7.

“7. Section 18 of the 1989 Act has been enacted to take care of an inherent deterrence and to instil a sense of protection amongst the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It is submitted that any dilution of the same would shake the very objective of the mechanism to prevent the offences of atrocities. The directions issued would cause a miscarriage of justice even in deserving cases. With a view to object apprehended misuse of the law, no such direction can be issued. In case there is no prima facie case made out under the 1989 Act, anticipatory bail can be granted. The same was granted in the case in question also.”

It  was  also  held  in Laxmi  Narayan  Sahu  vs  State  Of Chhattisgarh (CRA No. 1556 of 2021 on 7 February, 2022 C.G. High Court) that in case where prima facie, it shows that the appellant has a strong case to be contested in his defence benefit of anticiaptory bail should be extended, and placed reliance on Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India and others (2020) 4 SCC 727, and was observed as under:-

“8. The issue arising for consideration is whether the anticipatory bail application would be maintainable in view of bar under Section 18 of the Act of 1989. This legal issue is no longer res-integra in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India and others (2020) 4 SCC 727 wherein the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the maintainability of application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., in the matter of allegation of offence under the Act of 1989. "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 Section 18 and 18-A(i) shall not apply. We have clarified this aspect while deciding the review petitions.

I would only add a caveat with the observation and emphasize that while considering any application seeking pre-arrest bail, the High Court has to balance the two interests: i.e., that the power is not so used as to convert the jurisdiction into that under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, but that it is used sparingly and such orders made in very exceptional cases where no prima facie offence is made out as shown in the FIR, and further also that if such orders are not made in those classes of cases, the result would inevitably be a miscarriage of justice or abuse of process of law. I consider such stringent terms, otherwise contrary to the philosophy of bail, absolutely essential, because a liberal use of the power to grant pre-arrest bail would defeat the intention of Parliament".

Therefore, even though there may be allegations of offence under the Act of 1989, if a case is met out to be exceptional in nature, in exceptional cases, benefit of grant of anticipatory bail could be extended and in such cases the bar under section 18 of the Act of 1989 may not operate.”

In view of above and considering all these aspects including the nature of dispute, this Court is of the considered opinion that when the offence of SC/ST appears to be misuse of law, the Court has power to grant anticipatory bail, therefore, the accused/appellant deserves to be released on anticipatory bail.

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

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

(b) 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 fact to the Court or to any police officer,

(c) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial,

(d) he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial,

(e) he shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future.