Deepak Kumar vs State Of Chhattisgarh

With the consent of the parties, this appeal is heard finally.

The appellant has preferred this appeal for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.81/2021 registered at Police Station Narayanpur,

District Jashpur for the offence punishable under Sections 376 & 506 IPC and Section 3 (2-V) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention

of Atrocities Act, 1989) hereinafter referred to as “the SC/ST Actâ€​.

Case of the prosecution in brief is that the prosecutrix who belongs to scheduled caste category and working as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Dara

Kharika and her husband is working as a Secretary of Gram Panchayat Chatakpur, where the applicant has been elected as Up-Sarpanch, it is alleged

that the applicant on 08.06.2021 committed rape with the prosecutrix and committed repeated sexual intercourse for four months by threatening for

dire consequences.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecutrix is a major woman. The applicant is working as Up-Sarpanch in Gram Panchayat

Chatakpur and the husband of the prosecutrix is also posted as Secretary in the Gram Panchayat Chatakpur and when applicant found certain

financial irregularities against the husband of the complainant, the complainant lodged the false report for committed rape on her on the allegation that

since 08.06.2021 the applicant has been raping on her near the school and thereafter by threatening her and putting some pressure having sexually

exploited her for about 4 months. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the FIR has been lodged on 02.10.2021 i.e. after delay of about 4

months therefore, prosecution case is doubtful and there is no material which indicates that the applicant has committed the aforesaid offence because

the prosecutrix belongs to a particular community. So prima facie offence under Section 3 (2-V) of SC/ST Act cannot be made but the court below

rejected the bail application on the mechanical ground considering that the bar of Section 18 of the Atrocities Act which cannot be sustainable. He

lastly submits that, if he may be set at liberty by granting anticipatory bail, he would abide by all terms and conditions imposed on him while granting

bail.

Per contra, learned State counsel and counsel for the objector opposes the bail application submitting that from the bare perusal of the FIR, offence

of Atrocities Act is made out so bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act is attracted therefore, the anticipatory bail is not maintainable the appeal filed

by the appellant deserves to be dismissed.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of evidence, the allegation against the appellant and further considering that

there is four months delay in lodging of FIR and considering that the prosecutrix is major woman and also holding the post of Sarpanch, without further

commenting anything on merits, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the appellant.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the appellant, on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of

Rs.25,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court, 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 him by the said Court till disposal of the trial,

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