Gagan Jaipuriya vs State Of Chhattisgarh

This Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (henceforth ‘the Act of 1989’) is filed against the order dated 03.03.2022 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa whereby the Appellants’ application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail has been rejected.

The Appellants are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.02/2022 registered at P.S AJAKS, District Janjgir-Champa (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 506 and 323/34 IPC and under Sections 3(2)(V-A), 3(1)(n) & 3(1)(Ä) of the Act of 1989.

Prosecution case in brief is that the complainant, Timan Singh Raj who is the President of Shiksha Prasar Samiti, runs Educational Institutions and it is alleged that an employee of the Samiti namely Shri SP Tiwari (UDT) has been denied promotion wrongly and forgery has been committed by the complainant, therefore Shri Tiwari made a complaint for which, an enquiry committee has been constituted and the present Appellants were also included as member representatives on the request of Shri Tiwari and when the report was prepared for which, some interpolation has been made as per the allegations of the present Appellants, Shri Tiwari has been declined for his promotion, therefore, after coming the know the said fact, Shri Tiwari and the present Appellants have raised their voices. Then the complainant has lodged FIR that the Appellants have abused him in the name of caste and also threatened to kill him and beaten him, therefore, the aforesaid offence has been registered.

Learned counsel for the Appellants submits that the Appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He further submits that the basic ingredients of the offences alleged against the Appellants are not present in the case in hand and they have been unnecessarily roped in the controversy to settle the scores only because of the fact that the present Appellants have supported the valid case of Shri Tiwari, who has been harassed by the complainant and the management of the society of Shiksha Prasar Samiti, therefore, they may be granted anticipatory bail.

Per contra, learned Counsel for the State and the Objector strongly opposed the said prayer and submitted that there is bar under Section 18A of the SC/ST Act for grant of anticipatory bail, therefore, the application deserves to be rejected.

Shri Agrawal, learned Counsel for the Objector submits that on 11.02.2022 at about 2.00 pm, the incident took place for which, certain affidavits of the witnesses have been annexed. He further submits that the Appellants are habitual offenders and relied upon the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Hariram Bhambhi vs. Satyanarayan & Anr. passed in Criminal Appeal No.1278 of 2021 dated 29.10.2021.

In reply, Shri Thakur, learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that there are two previous antecedents against the present Appellants one pertaining to the year 2014, another to the year 2016 as also one criminal case registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 506 and 323 IPC was registered on 12.10.2014 and relied upon Rahna Jalal vs. State of Kerala and Another reported in (2021) 1 SCC 733 wherein, it is explicitly established that when prima facie case relating to anticipatory bail is made out, the provision under Section 18-18A is diluted. For ready reference, paragraphs-22 and 23 are reproduced here under:-

“22. Section 18 explicitly excludes the application of Section 438 CrPC in relation to any case involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of having committed an offence under the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 18-A specifically excludes the application of the provisions of Section 438 CrPC, notwithstanding any judgment, order or direction of a court.

The provisions of Section 18 and 18-A have been interpreted by a three-judge Bench of this Court in Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India (2020) 4 SCC 727 : (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 657 (“Chauhan”). Arun Mishra, J. speaking for himself and Vineet Saran, J. while construing these provisions, observed that: (SCC p. 751, para 11)

“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”.”

Even in Hariram Bhambhi vs. Satyanarayan & Anr. (supra) relied upon by learned Counsel for the Objector, the Supreme Court observed that while passing the order, the reason must be assigned.

Having considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and the law laid down in Rahna Jalal vs. State of Kerala and Another (supra), the facts of the present case, the genesis of the incident is denial of the promotion to one of the sub-ordinates and for which, the Appellants raised voice against the society wherein the complainant is the President of such society in which, an enquiry has been made and the Appellants were included as members on the request of the Shri Tiwari, who is a public representative and after the meeting, certain interpolation in the resolution has been made, therefore, they have raised voice to suppress it, therefore, looking to this backdrop, as the offence appears to have been not committed on the basis of the complainant belonging to a particular category but on account of the management’s denial of the promotion for which, such incident took place, therefore, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the Appellants.

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

(a) 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.

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

(c) they shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial.

(d) the Appellants and the surety shall submit a copy of their adhaar card along with a coloured postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court.

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

In view of above, IA No.01/2022, an application for grant of interim bail stands disposed of.