Nafr High Court
Case Details
-1- 025:CGHC:21774 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 763 of 2025 1 - Omkar Singh S/o Late Gajraj Singh, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Village - Ghutheli, Thana and Tahsil - Mungeli, Distt. - Mungeli (C.G.) 2 - Satish Singh S/o Late Gajraj Singh, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village - Ghutheli, Thana and Tahsil - Mungeli, Distt. - Mungeli (C.G.) 3 - Aman Singh S/o Shri Dinesh Singh, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village - Ghutheli, Thana and Tahsil - Mungeli, Distt. - Mungeli (C.G.) 4 - Jitendra @ Jittu S/o Shri Than Singh, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village - Ghutheli, Thana and Tahsil - Mungeli, Distt. - Mungeli (C.G.) --- Appellants versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through - The Station House Officer, Police Station - AJAK, Mungeli, Distt. - Mungeli (C.G.) --- Respondent CRA No. 688 of 2025 1 - Ramesh Singh Thakur S/o Shri Bahaddar Singh Thakur, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Village - Ghutheli, Thana and Tahsil - Mungeli, Distt. - Mungeli Chhattisgarh 2 - Ravindra Singh S/o Late Shri Puntu Singh Thakur, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Village - Ghutheli, Thana and Tahsil - Mungeli, Distt. - Mungeli Chhattisgarh 3 - Hemant Singh S/o Shri Ganesh Singh Thakur, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village - Ghutheli, Thana and Tahsil - Mungeli, Distt. - Mungeli Chhattisgarh 4 - Surendra Singh S/o Late Shri Jay Singh Thakur, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village - Ghutheli, Thana and Tahsil - Mungeli, Distt. - Mungeli Chhattisgarh 5 - Vijay Kumar S/.O Shri Shivkumar Yadav, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Village - Ghutheli, Thana and Tahsil - Mungeli, Distt. - Mungeli Chhattisgarh ---Appellants Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station - AJAK Mungeli, Distt - Mungeli Chhattisgarh Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD AADIL KHAN -2- (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ---- Respondent
Legal Reasoning
or examining whether the prima facie case under the SC/ST Act is made out or not. The Courts are entrusted with a duty to verify the averments in the complaint and to find out whether an offence under the SC/ST Act is prima facie made out or not. In para 41 of its judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that:- “41. It is clear from the aforesaid discussion that Section 18 of the Act, 1989 does not impose an absolute fetter on the power of the courts to examine whether a prima facie case attracting the provisions of the Act, 1989 is made out or not. As discussed, Section 18 stipulates that in any case which involves the arrest of any person on the accusation of having committed an offence under the Act, 1989, the benefit of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of CrPC would not be available to the accused. We have deliberated on the significance of the expression “arrest of any person” appearing in the text of Section 18 of the Act, 1989 and are of the view that Section 18 bars the remedy of anticipatory bail only in those cases where a valid arrest of the accused person can be made as per Section 41 read with Section 60A of CrPC.” 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Prithvi Raj Chouhan Vs. Union of India and others, reported in (2020) 4 SCC 727 has observed in -8- paras 11, 32 and 33 as under:- “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. 32. As far as the provision of Section 18-A and anticipatory bail is concerned, the judgment of Mishra, J. has stated that in cases where no prima facie materials exist warranting arrest in a complaint, the court has the inherent power to direct a pre-arrest bail. 33. I would only add a caveat with the observation and emphasis 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 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.” 15. In the present case, when this Court examined the FIR lodged by the complainant it reveals that it is alleged by the complainant that at the time of filling of nomination form for the post of Upsarpanch the accused persons -9- abused them and started assaulting the complainant party and threatened her. The allegation comes in the FIR that the accused persons have raised quarrel by saying that till their existence they could not fill the nomination form for Upsarpanch, though only one word ‘pefju‘ came in the written complaint, but in the opinion of this Court it alone would not be sufficient to constitute the offence under the SC/ST Act that the complainant was insulted, humiliated or intimidated by the accused persons. Further, in the enquiry report conducted by the Station House Officer, Police Station AJAK Mungeli, dated 11-03-2025 submitted before the Superintendent of Police, Mungeli reveals that the complaint with respect to loot of Rs.25,000/- and outraging modesty was found false, which dilutes the nature of offence as to whether the said incident was actually occurred or not. Considering the nature of allegation, the manner in which the alleged incident is said to have been occurred, the report and counter report has been lodged against both the parties, one part of the allegation of the complainant is found false, it was the day of election and during the election process the incident is alleged to have been occurred which makes the appellants case exceptional, hence the allegation of intentionally insult or humiliation in the name of her caste is not sufficient to constitute the offence under the SC/ST Act to deprive the appellants from benefit of anticipatory bail, therefore, the present case, in the considered opinion of this Court, is of exceptional nature and within the four corners of the category of cases where benefit of anticipatory bail can be granted despite bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act. In view of the above discussion and further considering the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments, I am inclined to allow the appeals and extend benefit of anticipatory bail to the appellants. 16. Consequently, both the appeals filed by the appellants are allowed and the impugned orders dated 26-03-2025 and 28-03-2025 passed by the learned -10- Special Judge (under the SC/ST Act), Mungeli (C.G.) in Bail Petition No. 69/2025 and Bail Petition No.76/2025 respectively are set aside. It is directed that in the event of arrest of these appellants in connection with the aforesaid offence, they shall be released on bail by the officer arresting them on each of them furnishing a personal bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Arresting Officer. The appellants shall also abide by the following conditions :- (i) that they shall make themselves available for interrogation before the investigating officer as and when required; (ii) that 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 him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) that they shall not act, in any manner, which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and (iv) that they shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial. 17. It is made clear that any observation made in this order is restricted only for consideration of the present appeals. The learned trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits without being influenced by any observation made in this order. Aadil Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge
Arguments
For Appellants – Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate (in CRA No.688/2025) and Mr. Vivek Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate (in CRA No.763/2025). For State/Respondent – Mr. K.K. Baharani, Panel Lawyer. For complainant – Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 09-05-2025 1. These two criminal appeals are arising out of the same crime number, therefore, they are being heard and decided together. 2. Pursuant to the order dated 04-04-2025 passed in CRA No.688/2025 and order dated 16-04-2025 passed in CRA No.763/2025 the complainant Smt. Madhavi Banjare appeared in person before this Court on 07-05-2025 and raised objection in granting bail to the appellants. 3. Both these appeals have been filed in connection with Crime No.01/2025 registered at Police Station AJAK Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) for the offence under Section 191(2), 296, 115(2) of BNS and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, ‘the SC/ST Act’). 4. Criminal Appeal No.688/2025 has been preferred under Section 14(A) (2) of the SC/ST Act against order dated 26-03-2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (under the SC/ST Act) Mungeli (C.G.) (in Bail Petition No.69/2025) whereby the application filed by appellants Ramesh Singh Thakur, Ravindra Singh, Hemant Singh, Surendra Singh and Vijay Kumar under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 in connection aforesaid crime number has been rejected. 5. Criminal Appeal No.763/2025 has been preferred under Section 14(A) (2) the SC/ST Act against order dated 28-03-2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (under the SC/ST Act) Mungeli (C.G.) (in Bail Petition -3- No.76/2025) whereby the application filed by appellants Omkar Singh, Satish Singh, Aman Singh and Jitendra @ Jittu under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 in connection aforesaid crime number has been rejected. 6. The brief facts of the case are that on 10-03-2025 an FIR of crime No. 01/2025 has been registered by AJAK Police Station Mungeli against 10 accused persons in which it is alleged that on 08-03-2025 there was a panchayat election scheduled for election of Upsarpanch at Gram Panchayat Ghutheli. During the submission of nomination form at 11:50 a.m. when the complainant filling up the nomination form, the accused persons in their common object started abusing the complainant in the name of her caste by saying that she will not fill the form of Upsarpach and started assaulting the ladies and outraging their modesty. The accused Omkar Singh, Satish Singh and Jitendra Singh @ Jittu have looted Rs.25,000/- from Sheshnarayan. The incident was witnesses by other persons present there and they intervened in the quarrel. On the report made by the complainant, the FIR has been registered in which the appellants are apprehending their arrest. 7. Mr. Sunil Sahu, learned counsel appearing in CRA No.688/2025 would submit that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the offence as it was the general quarrel took place at the time of election of Upsarpanch. It was the time of panchayat election in the village and normally some dispute arose between the winner party and the loser party. He would also submit that it is alleged that the incident occurred during the filling up nomination form by the complainant, but from the panchnama prepared on the spot it is quite vivid that no nomination form has been filled up by the complainant. He would also submit that the complainant has lodged the report that the accused persons have looted Rs.25,000/- and committed marpeet with them, but in the enquiry the allegation of loot of Rs.25,000/- is found false and when the one part of the report is found false the other part also makes itself doubtful as to whether -4- such incident actually occurred or not. He would also submit that with respect to the alleged incident the presiding officer has lodged report against the complainant party in which the FIR has been registered against the present complainant party vide Crime No.83/2025 registered at Police Station Mungeli for the offence under section 132, 191(2), 221 and 333 of BNS, 2023. it was a free fight between two groups of the village. However, the complainant was never intentionally insulted or humiliated by the accused persons to prevent her participation in the election process. He would also submit that only to make the offence grievous and non-bailable the complaint of abusing with the name of caste of the complainant have been added, whereas, the other offences are bailable one. The appellants are respectful persons in the society and community, they will cooperate with the investigations as well as the trial and therefore they may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 8. Mr. Vivek Kumar Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing in Criminal Appeal No.763/2025 would submit that it was a petty quarrel at the time of election of panchayat members which has been given the shape of offence under the SC/ST Act, so that the personal grudge of the complainant can be satisfied by sending the appellants in jail in non-bailable offence under the SC/ST Act. The complainant party themselves are responsible for the nuisance created at the time of election process for which the FIR has also been lodged against them by the presiding officer. There is no chances of any tampering with the witnesses or absconding from the village. The allegations are general and omnibus in nature. The appellants are residents of the same village and are bread winner of their family, therefore, they may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and has submitted that on the report made by the complainant the FIR has been registered. From the FIR, it reflects that the complainant was abused by the -5- accused persons in the name of her caste and she was intentionally humiliated by the accused persons for which the offence under the SC/ST Act have been registered and in view of bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act their anticipatory bail applications are not maintainable and the same are liable to be rejected. The learned trial Court has also considered the allegations against the accused persons and held that in view of the allegations made in the FIR anticipatory bail applications are not maintainable in which there is no infirmity and the orders impugned are liable to be affirmed. 10. Mr. Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the complainant vehemently opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the appellants and has submitted that he accused persons belong to upper caste, whereas, the complainant belongs to SC/ST community. To deprive the complainant to contest election of Upsarpanch and to keep their monopoly on the post of Upsarpanch they raised quarrel with the complainant at the time when she had gone to fill up the nomination form. Only intention of the accused persons are that no person belonging to the SC/ST community would be elected as Upsarpanch of the village. On the date of incident itself the complainant lodged her report to the police, whereas, the presiding officer has lodged the report against the complainant after about two days particularly when her FIR has already been registered which itself shows the powerfulness of the accused persons. There is no explanation of delay in lodging the report against the complainant by the presiding officer. The complainant in presence of the entire villagers was intentionally humiliated and intimidated by the accused persons to keep her away from election, therefore, there are sufficient ingredients of the offence of SC/ST Act in the FIR and the anticipatory bail is barred as provided under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act and their appeals are liable be dismissed. He would also submit that on the last election also the same incident was occurred in which the FIR has been registered and a -6- criminal case is pending against the accused persons, which further shows their intention that they would not permit the complainant to contest the election to keep their monopoly. Therefore, both these appeals are liable to be dismissed. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary with utmost circumspection. 12. First, it is to be considered the bar of the anticipatory bail application as provided under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act. Section 18 of the SC/ST Act defines that :- “18. Section 438 of the Code not to apply to persons committing an offence under the Act.—Nothing in section 438 of the Code shall apply in relation to any case involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of having committed an offence under this Act. [18A. No enquiry or approval required.—(1) For the purposes of this Act,— (a) preliminary enquiry shall not be required for registration of a First Information Report against any person; or (b) the investigating officer shall not require approval for the arrest, if necessary, of any person, against whom an accusation of having committed an offence under this Act has been made and no procedure other than that provided under this Act or the Code shall apply. -7- (2) The provisions of section 438 of the Code shall not apply to a case under this Act, notwithstanding any judgment or order or direction of any Court.]” 13. In the matter of Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala and Another, 2024 SCC Online SC 2249, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that Section 18 of the SC/ST Act does not create an absolute bar on the anticipatory bail application