Vrindavan Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh

This appeal is filed by the accused/appellants under Section 14(A) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.31/2020 registered at Police Station SDOP, Sitapur for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294, 506, 323 and 34 IPC and Section 3 (1) (r) (s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “Act 1989”).

Prosecution story in nutshell is that accused/appellants have abused the complainant Ishwar Choudhary and his family members in the name of his caste and also beaten them by hitting stones, rod and sticks. Thereafter, the report was lodged for the aforesaid offence.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He submits that appellants have not committed the said offence. From bare perusal of FIR it reflects that there is no ingredients of Atrocity Act. He submits that there is dispute about the land occupied by the Government over which appellant Fuleshwar Yadav was running his shop and the complainant and his family members always tried to damaging his shop therefore, to take revenge, the said report was lodged. He lastly submits that the offence has not committed just because the complainant belongs to the particular community or caste therefore, Section 18 of the Act of 1989 does not attract. In these circumstances the appellants may be enlarged on bail.

On the other hand, learned State counsel and counsel for the objector along with complainant strongly opposes the prayer for bail and submits that prima facie case relating to the Act of 1989 is made out. Therefore, Section 18 and 18A of the said Act completely bars the anticipatory bail. Therefore, application is not maintainable and liable to be rejected.

Having considered submission of learned counsel for the parties, considering the nature of allegation particularly, considering that in the FIR prima facie it appears that there was dispute related to land. Therefore, it cannot be said that the dispute arisen just because the complainant belongs the particular community. Therefore, without further commenting on merits, this Court is of the opinion that the accused/appellants can be granted bail.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the appellants, on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, they shall be released on bail on the following conditions:-

(a) they shall make himself 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) after filing of the charge-sheet, they shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial,

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