Santosh Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Heard.

This appeal is directed against order dated 04.10.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Balrampur at Ramanujganj, District-

Balrampur-Ramanjuganj (C.G.) under Section 14(A) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act for grant

of anticipatory bail.

Pursuant to the order dated 20.12.2021 an affidavit has been filed by the Superintendent of Police, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) in which

it is stated that after registration of FIR, a notice dated 28.07.2021 has been issued under Section 91 of Cr.P.C for producing the caste certificate, but

the victim was failed to produce the same. Thereafter, the Sub Divisional Officer, Wadrafnagar, District-Balrampur-Ramanjuganj also issued letter

dated 28.07.2021 to the Tahsildar, Ramchandrapur for issuance of caste certificate of victim, after that on 13.08.2021 the Sub Divisional Officer,

Wadrafnagar issued letter to the Tahsildar, Ramanujganj, District-Balrampur for issuance of caste certificate of victim and on 31.08.2021 a notice

under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. has been issued to the victim for producing the caste certificate. Further it is stated that on 04.10.2021 the Tahsildar,

Ramanujganj sent a report stating that after examination of records it is found that Surguja State Settlement 1943-44 the caste of victim is

“Parhiyaâ€, therefore, the victim/Devchand Pando is not eligible for issuance of caste certificate of Schedule Tribe, thus, the application for

issuance of caste certificate is being rejected. After receiving the report from the Tahsildar, Ramanujganj, on 07.10.2021, the investigating Officer/Sub

Divisional Officer (Police), Wadrafnagar sent proposal for deleting the section of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act, 1989, on the basis of report of the Tahsildar, Ramanujganj, in which the Dy. Superintendent of Police, AJK, Balrampur, agreed with the proposal

of Investigating Officer, Wadrafnagar. It is also submitted that on the basis of report of the Tahsildar regarding non-issuance of caste certificate in

favour of the victim, the Superintendent of Police, Balrampur-Ramanujganj granted permission to delete the Section of Scheduled Caste and

Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. (Annexure D-7).

The appellant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 27/2017, registered at Police Station â€" Ajak, Balrampur, District Balrampur

(C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 374, 506, 452 of the IPC and Section 3(1) () 3(2)(V)d of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

As per the prosecution case, complainant lodged a report that her husband was threatened by the accused/appellant and the accused took her

husband to his house for work. It is alleged that previously on year 2019 her husband devchand Pando has done the work in the Dabhri for which an

amount of Rs. 7100/-had received in his account, for which the accused directed to refund such amount along with the interest and took complainant's

husband to his house for work. Based on this offence has been registered against the present appellant.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that

Devchand has taken an amount of Rs. 5000/- from the appellant and not returned such amount for which the appellant told to Devchand to do the

work in rainy season and pay the advance loan amount which has been taken by him. He next submits that charge under Section Scheduled Caste and

Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been deleted and all other charges has been triable by Judicial Magistrate, therefore, the appellant

may be granted anticipatory bail.

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

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, age of the appellant/accused i.e. about 36 years 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

appellant. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the appellant in connection with aforesaid crime number, he

shall be released on bail 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

concerned arresting/investigating officer or the Court concerned, as the case may be, with the following terms and conditions:

(i) that the appellant shall make himself available for interrogation/medical test etc. before the concerned investigating officer as and when required;

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

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