High CourtsSingle Bench

Sunita vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh High Court · Decided on 10 April 2023 · Citation: (2023) 04 CHH CK 0020

HON’BLE JUDGES
Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 147, 148, 149, 186, 332, 353 · Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 3(1)(r)
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case (Anticipatory Bail) No. 315 Of 2023
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

14 paragraphs · 990 words
1.

This application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the accused/applicant for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.158/2017 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Balodabazar, Bhatapara for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 186, 332 and 353 of IPC.

2.

Facts of the case in brief is that husband of the applicant No.1 namely Jaswant Saluja @ Nikku Saluja was initially taken to the police station for violation of traffic rules. It is alleged that due to atrocities committed by complainant Ashutosh Banjare, posted as Constable in Traffic Police and other police officers, Jaswant Saluja died.

As per instant FIR lodged by complainant Ashutosh Banjare, on 19.04.2017 at about 4 PM, on account of death of Jaswant Saluja, some members of Sikh community made a procession and gave a memorandum to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Balodabazar for proper enquiry in the matter. It is alleged that while they were returning from the office of the S.D.M., near Housing Board Tiraha, (Trijunction) some police personnel and present complainant, who were on duty, started shouting at them by saying that the complainant is one of the person who had issued Challan to deceased Jaswant Saluja. It is alleged that Tonu Saluja, Raju Saluja, Keshar Saluja, Satpal Saluja, Sumit Chawla, Pintu Saluja, Chintu Saluja and family members of the deceased and other 15-20 persons caught hold of the complainant and started beating him by hands and fists. Thereafter, the complainant rushed to the police station. There also the aforesaid persons chased the complainant and entered into the police station and again started beating the complainant Ashutosh Banjare and torn his police uniform. The said incident was witnessed by many police persons present there. Thereafter, complainant Ashutosh Banjare lodged the instant FIR at Police Station Baloda vide FIR No.158/2017.

In connection with the alleged incident, after making arrest of other accused namely Daljit Singh @ Chintu Saluja, Nirmal Singh Saluja @ Tonu and Sumit Singh Chawla, the charge sheet was filed. Later on, Criminal Revision No.54/2018 was preferred by them before the High Court in which vide order dated 05.02.2018, charges framed under Section 3 (1) (r) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were struck down. However, charges framed under Sections 148, 186/149, 332/149 and 353/149 remained intact.

3.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that a false and fabricated case has been made out against the applicants. The complainant is a Constable in the Police Department. He further submit that at the time of incident, applicant No.3 – Sonam was minor. He also submit that the present applicants have not participated in the alleged act of beating the complainant. He further submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, as they were regularly making complaints against complainant Ashutosh Banjare that he is the main culprit, who caused death of deceased Jaswant Saluja by torturing him. The applicants have also preferred WPCR No.226/2017 before this High Court for taking appropriate action against the complainant in which vide order dated 30.10.2017, the Superintendent of Police was directed to ensure that the applicants and their family members shall not be subjected to any atrocities or pressure tactics by any police authorities and their safety shall be ensured. He lastly submits that looking to the atrocities committed by the complainant and considering the circumstances of the case, the applicants may be granted anticipatory bail. He also submits that the applicants shall abide by all the terms and conditions imposed on them, if this Court is inclined to grant bail to the applicants.

4.

Per contra, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the bail application. On a query being made, learned State counsel admits that in the FIR, it is stated that the family members of deceased Nikku Saluja have also beaten the complainant, however, names of the present applicants are not mentioned. Learned State counsel also submits that in the charge sheet which has been filed with regard to 3 persons, names of the present applicants were not mentioned. However, on the basis of video recording, after investigation, the charge-sheet has to be filed against the accused persons.

5.

Heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the documents annexed with the petition along with the case diary.

6.

Having considered facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, considering that the incident took place in the year 2017 and subsequently 3 persons have been arrested against whom investigation is completed and the charge-sheet has also been filed; further considering that the names of the present applicants are not mentioned in the instant FIR; considering that the present applicants, who are the wife and children, had regularly made complaints against complainant Ashutosh Banjare for atrocities committed on Jaswant Saluja which resulted in his death, this Court is of the opinion that present applicants can be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

7.

Accordingly, application is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants, on each applicant furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court, they shall be released on bail, on the following conditions:-

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

(b) 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 them from disclosing such fact to the Court or to any police officer,

(c) they shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial,

(d) they shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial,

(e) they shall not involve themselves in any offence of similar nature in future.