Sufal Das Manikpuri vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Heard.

The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 14- A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 (in short “the S.C./S.T. Act”), for grant of anticipatory bail, as he apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.179/2022 registered at Police Station Kotwali District Korba (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 342, 506, 354 (d) of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v d ) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The case of the prosecution is that the complainant has lodged an FIR on 25.2.2022 at 22:50 hours at P.S. Korba, alleging that on the said date, there was a public meeting going on, in which, all the Mitanins of Ward No.8 and the Ward Councilors were present. At that time, the present appellant, who is the Ward Councilor of Ward No.8, used filthy language against the Mitanins, particularly misbehaving with the complainant, who was one of the Mitanins present there. Thereafter, the complainant along with her husband went to the house of the appellant and there, the complainant and her husband were beaten by the appellant by bolting the door and they were also threatened. Hence, an offence under Sections 294, 323, 342 and 506 of the IPC was registered. After recording the statement of the complainant under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., offences under Section 354-A of the IPC and under Section 3(2) (va) of the S.C./S.T. Act have also been registered.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has not committed any offence as alleged and the FIR of the complainant is a counter-blast as the appellant has also lodged an FIR, which was registered as Crime No.177/2022 for the offence punishable under Section 186, 294, 323, 332, 452, 506, 34 of the IPC, against the complainant and her husband and on such complaint, they have been arrested. Subsequently, after coming out from the jail, the complainant exaggerated her version and the allegations of outraging her modesty and the caste based atrocities were also made. He further submits that in the FIR, there is no prima facie allegation of atrocities and the bar imposed under Section 18 of the S.C./S.T. Act is not applicable in the present case and the other offences are bailable in nature, therefore, he prays for extending the benefit of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to the appellant.

Learned counsel for the State as well as the learned counsel for the Objector oppose the bail application. He submits that the appellant has humiliated the objector/complainant during the meeting. Thereafter, the complainant apprised the incident to her husband and they both had gone to the residence of the appellant, where, they were abused by the appellant and were also assaulted. The appellant is a public figure, therefore, he misused his position to incriminate the complainant and her family in a false case. He places reliance on the judgment passed in the matter of Vilas Pandurang Pawar and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2012) 8 SCC 795, wherein in following has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 10 :

“10.The scope of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act read with Section 438 of the code is such that it creates a specific bar in the grant of anticipatory bail. When an offence is registered against a person under the provisions of the SC/ST Act, no court shall entertain an application for anticipatory bail, unless it prima facie finds that such an offence is not made out. Moreover, while considering the application for bail, scope for appreciation of evidence and other material on record is limited. The court is not expected to indulge in critical analysis of the evidence on record. When a provision has been enacted in the Special Act to protect the persons who belong to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and a bar has been imposed in granting bail under Section 438 of the Code, the provision in the Special Act cannot be easily brushed aside by elaborate discussion on the evidence.”

Leaned counsel for the State fairly submits that in the FIR, there is prima facie no allegation about caste or caste based abuses but the offence has been committed against a member, who belongs to a particular community and the appellant was very well aware about the fact that the complainant belongs to such community, therefore, the ingredients of the offence under the Atrocities Act would be attracted in this case.

Learned counsel further places reliance on the judgment passed in the matter of Patan Jamal Vali Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 343, wherein, in para 66,

Section 8 has been referred as under :

“66..................................................................................................

…...............................................................................................

The amended Section 8 reads as follows :

“8. Presumption as to offences. – In a prosecution for an offence under this Chapter, if it is proved that

(a) …...

(b) …....

(c) the accused was having personal knowledge of the victim or his family, the Court shall presume that the accused was aware of the caste or tribal identity of the victim, unless the contrary is proved.”

Reverting back to the present case, learned State Counsel submits that the appellant was having personal knowledge of the caste of the victim and there was no necessity for the complainant to mention about her caste at the time of registration of the FIR , therefore, in view of the above, the appellant may not be extended the benefit of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

In reply, learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the FIR, prima facie there is no material available to attract the S.C./S.T. Act and only after the lodging of the FIR by the appellant, such allegations were levelled.

Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the appellant is having a strong case for defence and no offence under the Atrocities Act has been committed by the appellant. The appellant only as a Ward Member of the Council has enquired about the work and conduct of the complainant in the public meeting, therefore, the complainant got enraged and roped the appellant in a false and fabricated case by using her caste status.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2020) 4 SCC 761 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.”

It was also held in Laxmi Narayan Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh (CRA No. 1556 of 2021 on 7 February, 2022 C.G. High Court) that in case where prima facie, it shows that the appellant has a strong case to be contested in his defence benefit of anticiaptory bail should be extended, and placed reliance on Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India and others (2020) 4 SCC 727, and was observed as under:-

“8. The issue arising for consideration is whether the anticipatory bail application would be maintainable in view of bar under Section 18 of the Act of 1989. This legal issue is no longer res-integra in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India and others (2020) 4 SCC 727 wherein the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the maintainability of application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., in the matter of allegation of offence under the Act of 1989. "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.

I would only add a caveat with the observation and emphasize that while considering any application seeking pre-arrest bail, the High Court has to balance the two interests: i.e., that the power is not so used as to convert the jurisdiction into that under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, but that it is used sparingly and such orders made in very exceptional cases where no prima facie offence is made out as shown in the FIR, and further also that if such orders are not made in those classes of cases, the result would inevitably be a miscarriage of justice or abuse of process of law. I consider such stringent terms, otherwise contrary to the philosophy of bail, absolutely essential, because a liberal use of the power to grant pre-arrest bail would defeat the intention of Parliament".

Therefore, even though there may be allegations of offence under the Act of 1989, if a case is met out to be exceptional in nature, in exceptional cases, benefit of grant of anticipatory bail could be extended and in such cases the bar under section 18 of the Act of 1989 may not operate.”

In the case in hand, it is manifest that in the FIR lodged by the complainant, allegations about some altercation was only there and there was no mention about the caste based atrocities. After the said incident, the complainant herself went along with her husband to the house of the appellant and then, the second incident took place. On account of the second incident, the appellant has also lodged the FIR and the Police has registered an offence against the complainant and her husband.

Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, this Court finds that in the FIR, prima facie ingredients attracting the offence under the Atrocities Act are missing, hence, I am of the opinion that the present is a fit case in which the benefit of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. should be extended to the appellant.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the appellant, he is directed to be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer with the following conditions:

(a) he shall make himself available for interrogation by the concerned police officer as and when so 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) after filing of the charge sheet, he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial,

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

(f) he shall not influence the witnesses during pendency of the trial.

Certified copy as per rules.