Puran Prasad Rajwade vs State Of Chhattisgarh

The matter is heard through video conferencing.

Pursuant to the notice issued to complainant on 06.12.2021, complainant- Sumitra is present today before this Court. On being asked, she made her

objection regarding grant of bail to the appellants.

This appeal is filed against the order dated 22.11.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Surguja, Ambikapur (C.G.) under Section

14(A) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), 1989 r/w Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.

The appellant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 133/2021, registered at Police Station â€" Udaipur, District- Surguja (C.G.)

for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 506, 34 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(n) (/k) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention

of Atrocities) Act.

As per the case of the prosecution, it has been alleged that appellants abused the complainant in filthy language and also threatened her of dire

consequence.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that the

alleged incident took place on 07.08.2021 and the FIR has been registered on 28.08.2021. Thus, delay in lodging the FIR itself shows that a false story

has been cooked against the appellants. It is next contended that there is no direct evidence against the appellants, therefore, the appellants may be

granted anticipatory bail.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the state opposes the anticipatory bail application of the appellants.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the matter of Pavas Sharma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and another (CRA No. 806/2020, order dated

22.01.2021), has elaborately dealt with the issue pertaining to offence under the Act, 1989 and finds that merely because offence under Section 3(2)

(V)(a) of the Act, 1989 was registered against the applicant, learned court below rejected the application holding it to be not maintainable in view of

the provisions contained under Section 18 of the Act of 1989, without taking into consideration the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of

Prathvi Raj Chouhan Vs. Union of India and Others (2020) 4 SCC 727. Even though, offence under the Act of 1989 is registered, where application

for grant of anticipatory bail is filed, the Court is required to apply its mind to the relevant provisions of law and considerations as specified by the

Supreme Court in the case of Prathvi (supra) and if material on record leads to satisfaction that the complaint does not make out a prima facie case,

for applicability of the provisions of the Act of 1989, the bar created under Section 18 of the Act of 1989 shall not apply and in appropriate cases of

exceptional nature, benefit of anticipatory bail could be admitted to the applicant. The learned Court below committed patent illegality in mechanically

rejecting the bail application. Order of rejection, therefore, cannot be sustained in law and, therefore, set aside.

After hearing counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the order passed by this Court in

Pavas (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the appellants. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

It is directed that in the event of arrest of the appellants in connection with aforesaid crime number, they shall be released on bail on their furnishing a

personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-, with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned arresting/investigating officer or the

Court concerned, as the case may be, with the following terms and conditions:

(i) that the appellants shall make themselves available for interrogation/medical test etc. before the concerned investigating officer as and when

required;

(ii) that the appellants shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case as to

dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

(iii) that the appellants shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and

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