Umashankar Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh

This appeal has been filed by the accused/appellants under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Cases and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Attoricties)

Act against the order dated 03.03.2021 passed in bail application No. 168/2021 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities) Ambikapur, district Surguja

(CG) whereby the bail application filed by the appellants under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been rejected.

The appellant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 92/2021 resgistered at police station Gandhinagar, Ambikapur District Surguja

(CG) for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of the SC/SC (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Case of the prosecution in brief is that report was lodged by the prosecutrix on 15.02.20221 alleging that she came in contact with the appellant in the

year 2014 and thereafter they developed physical relations after performing marriage by putting vemilion at Mahamaya temple. It is alleged that when

the complainant became pregnant, the appellant left her at the railway station for her parent's house, convincting her that she will perform marriage

with her as per the rituals. It is further case of prosecution that for four times the appellant had administrered her medicine for abortion.

Contention of the counsel for the appellant is that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. She further submits that the prosecutrix

was major and a consenting party. She submits that in the present circumstances of the pandemic Covid-19, the investigation will take time and

therefore the appellant may be granted bail.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State as well as the prosecutrix opposes the bail application.

In the matter of Pavas Sharma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and another (Cr.A. No. 806/2020 order dated 22.01.2021), the Co-ordinate Bench has

elaborately dealt with the issue pertaining to the offence under the Act 1989 and found that merely because the FIR has been lodged against the

appellant for the offence under Section 3(1)(d)(dha) of the SC/SC (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the court below has 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 Apex Court in the case of Prathvi Raj Chouhan Vs. Union of India and Others reported in (2020) 4 SCC 727. It has been held that though offence

under the Act of 1989 is registered and application for grant of bail is filed, the Court is required to apply its mind to the relevant provisions of law and

consider as speicified by the Apex Court in the case of Prathvi (supra) and if the 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 barcreated under Section 18 of the Act of 1989 shall not apply

and in appropriate cases of exceptional nature, benefit of anticipatory bail could be granted to the applicant. The court below has committed patent

illegality in mechanically rejecting the bail application. Therefore, order of rejection, cannot be sustained in the eye of law, and is set aside.

Having heard counsel for the parties and considering the totality of the facts and in view of the order passed by this Court in Pavas (supra), this Court

is of the view that it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the appellant. Accordingly, the application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of

arrest of the appellant in connection with the aforesaid offence, he shall be released on bail on his executing a personal bond in sum of Rs. 25,000/-

each with one surety to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The appellant shall also abide by the following conditions :

I) that the appellant shall make himself available for interrogation before the concerned investigating officer as and when required:

ii) that 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 facts to the Court or any police officer;

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

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