Jalaj Kumar Patel vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Heard.

The present appeal is arising out of order dated 25.08.2021 passed by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Balrampur at Ramanujganj in B.A. No.

296/2021.

The appellants have preferred this appeal for grant of anticipatory bail, as they apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime No.31/2021

registered in Police Station AJAK Balrampur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj for the offence punishable under Section 294, 506 of IPC and under

Section 3(1)(r-s) of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

As per the prosecution case, a report was made by the complainant Ramashankar that the present appellants have tried to grab the land of the

complainant and having been resisted abused in the name of caste thereby he felt ashamed. It was further complained that the appellants have also

caused damage to the crop by spray of insecticide. Thereby the offence is committed.

Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the entire incident happened for the reason that the easementry right was claimed over the

part of the land of the complainant. He would further submit that when such aggravated issue was not settled and the complainant put a gate over the

road, a complaint was made before the Tehsildar and the Tehsildar has passed the stay order on 24.09.2020 thereafter when the stay order was not

followed, a contempt application was filed and after the contempt notice was issued on 02.08.2021 the false allegations have been made. He would

further submit that therefore, prima facie it would not attract the provisions of S.C. S.T. Act. He also refers to the Panchnama and would submit that

the Panchnama revealed that the land was used by way of road by the general public and it is the only road which is available to access the house,

therefore, the appellants may be given the benefit of anticipatory bail.

Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and would submit that the complainant was abused in the name of the caste,

therefore, the anticipatory bail as per Section 18 of the S.C. S.T. Act would be barred.

Complainant also objected to grant of bail who appeared through DLSA, Balrampur on 17.12.2021.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. The panchnama which is placed on record shows that in respect of the

land which is under dispute bearing Khasra No.1008/1 easementry right was claimed by the villagers and two panchnama which are on record fortify

the fact that the land was used for the purpose of road, wherein gate has been put on by the complainant. The order dated 24.09.2020 it would reflect

that the stay order was passed by the Tehsildar, Wadrafnagar, District Balrampur against stoppage to put up the gate over the road. The another letter

dated 02.08.2021 it would show that the complainant thereafter did not follow the stay order passed by the Tehsildar as such a letter was issued to the

SHO, Wadrafnagar for contempt of the order.

Reading of the Panchnama fortifies the fact that it is a dispute about the land and the villagers claimed easementry right over the same for which

the issue was aggravated. Prima facie the document would show that after the case about the land was pending before the Board of Revenue

wherein after a notice was issued on 02.08.2021 thereafter FIR was lodged on 12.08.2021. Taking into prima facie the stay order of the Tehsildar, the

contempt notice and the Panchnama which prima facie shows that there is dispute about the land on which the appellants claimed their right and the

villagers claimed easementry right and totality prima facie it appears that the dispute arose because of other land dispute which is the nucleus of the

issue and also considering the fact that the appellants are the government servants, I am inclined to give the benefit of anticipatory bail to the

appellants.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set-aside.

The appellants are directed to be released on anticipatory bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety

each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer with the following conditions:

(i) they shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(ii) 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

him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

(iii) they shall not influence the witnesses during pendency of the trial.

Certified copy as per rules.