Bikram Sahu (Wrongly Mentioned As Vikram Sahu VsState Of Chhattisgarh

This appeal is filed by the accused/appellant under Section 14(A) (ii) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.158/2021 registered at Police Station Khallari, District Mahsamund for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 506 and 34 IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) (p) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “Act 1989”).

Prosecution story in nutshell is that complainant Anandram Gond lodged a report in the Police Station Khallari alleging that the appellants entered into the field of complainant and abused him filthy in the name of his caste and threatened to life. Thereafter, the offence was registered.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He submits that there was land dispute between the appellants and their real brother Lekhram but at the instance of Lekhram, Anandram Gond has lodged a false case to implicate the appellants and a case is also pending before the Sub-Divisional Officer. Learned counsel for the appellant has filed affidavit with covering memo and submits that Lekhram has given the land in question to to complainant Anandram on rent. He further submits that the appellants are the reputed persons. The essential ingredients of alleged offences are not attracted against the appellant. Therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail.

On the other hand, learned State counsel and counsel for the objector strongly opposes the prayer for bail and submits that prima facie case relating to the Act of 1989 is made out. Therefore, Section 18 and 18A of the said Act completely bars the anticipatory bail. Therefore, application is not maintainable and liable to be rejected.

Having considered submission of learned counsel for the parties, considering the nature of allegation particularly considering that the appellants are having a civil dispute with the Lekhram in the same village and the complaint has been lodged by Atmaram Gond therefore, it appears that the dispute arises out of the civil dispute and not arises because the complainant belongs the particular community. In Ramavatar Vs. State of MP reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 966 relevant portion of paragraph 19 is reproduced herein:-

“…The very purpose behind Section 3 (1) (x) of the SC/ST is to deter caste-based insults and intimidations when they are used with the intention of demeaning a victim on account of he/she belonging to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community....”

In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that bar under Section 18 of the Act of 1989 does not attract. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the accused/appellants can be granted bail.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants, on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, they shall be released on bail on the following conditions:-

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

(b) they 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 them from disclosing such fact to the Court or to any police officer,

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

(d) after filing of the charge-sheet, they shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial,

(e) they shall not involve themselves in any offence of similar nature in future.