Ravindra Soni vs State Of Chhattisgarh

The accused/appellant has filed this appeal under Section 14 (A) (2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “the SC/ST Act”) for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.18/2021 registered at Police Station Ajak Ambikapur, District Surguja for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 506 & 452 of IPC and Sections 3 (1) (r) (s) of the SC/ST Act.

According to prosecution case, the appellant who runs a petrol pump and under whom the complainant was working as an employee, on the date of incident had enquired about the presence of the complainant/victim at the petrol pump but he was not present at the work place. Thereafter, the appellant had gone to the victim’s matrimonial house at village Silsila where the complainant was found. It is alleged against the appellant that he abused him in the name of his caste and forcefully took him to the petrol pump. Thereafter, the victim’s in-law called him and again taken him to matrimonial house. The appellant again called him through his phone and abused him filthily in the name of his caste and also threatened to kill him.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case as the complainant was not found at the work place and when he caught red handed in his matrimonial house, then just to save himself and to hide his lie, he lodged the false report by misusing his caste. It is submitted that the incident took place within the house so the ingredients of offence under the SC/ST Act are not attracted. Therefore, considering all these aspects, the appellant may be granted anticipatory bail.

Per contra, learned State counsel puts forth his vehement opposition to the prayer for bail and submits that there is bar under Section 18 and 18-A of the SC/ST Act. However, the complainant also appeared before this Court through DLSA Ambikapur and submits no objection in releasing the appellant on bail.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the fact that relation between the complainant and the appellant was of employee and employer and the complainant has falsely reported about his presence at the petrol pump and when he caught red handed, altercation took place between them and FIR has been lodged. In the matter of Union of India Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2020) 4 SCC 761, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held thus in para 7:-

“7. Section 18 of the 1989 Act has been enacted to take care of an inherent deterrence and to instil a sense of protection amongst the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It is submitted that any dilution of the same would shake the very objective of the mechanism to prevent the offences of atrocities. The directions issued would cause a miscarriage of justice even in deserving cases. With a view to object apprehended misuse of the law, no such direction can be issued. In case there is no prima facie case made out under the 1989 Act, anticipatory bail can be granted. The same was granted in the case in question also.”

Further, the Supreme Court has held in Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India, (2020) 4 SCC 727 relevant paragraph of which is reproduced hereunder:-

These facts, in my opinion ought to be kept in mind by courts which have to try and deal with offences under the Act. It is important to keep oneself reminded that while sometimes (perhaps mostly in urban areas) false accusations are made, those are not necessarily reflective of the prevailing and widespread social prejudices against members of these oppressed classes. Significantly, the amendment of 2016, in the expanded definition of “atrocity”, also lists pernicious practices (under Section 3) including forcing the eating of inedible matter, dumping of excreta near the homes or in the neighbourhood of members of such communities and several other forms of humiliation, which members of such Scheduled Caste communities are subjected to. All these considerations far outweigh the petitioners' concern that innocent individuals would be subjected to what are described as arbitrary processes of investigation and legal proceedings, without adequate safeguards. The right to a trial with all attendant safeguards are available to those accused of committing offences under the Act; they remain unchanged by the enactment of the amendment.

In view of above, considering the nature of dispute, and further considering that complainant himself submits no objection, prima facie it appears that the report has been lodged to save himself, this Court is of the opinion that the accused/appellant can be granted anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the appellant, on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, he shall be released on anticipatory 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 them by the said Court till disposal of the trial,

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