Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:38025 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1222 of 2025 1 - Jagat Bhuihar S/o Ghasi Bhihar, aged about 50 years, R/o Village Mudhi Bijaghat Chowki Pandrapath P.S. Bagicha Tahsil Sanna, District - Jashpur (C.G.). 2 - Rajan S/o Bhadar Yadav Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Mudhi Bijaghat Chowki Pandrapath P.S. Bagicha Tahsil Sanna, District - Jashpur (C.G.). 3 - Jagdhar S/o Baiga Yadav Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Mudhi Bijaghat Chowki Pandrapath P.S. Bagicha Tahsil Sanna, District - Jashpur (C.G.). 4 - Shivnath Yadav S/o Suresh Yadav Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Mudhi Bijaghat Chowki Pandrapath P.S. Bagicha Tahsil Sanna, District - Jashpur (C.G.). 5 - Masatram Yadav S/o Kanhaiya Yadav Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Mudhi Bijaghat Chowki Pandrapath P.S. Bagicha Tahsil Sanna, District - Jashpur (C.G.). 6 - Manoj Yadav S/o Kanhaiya Yadav Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Mudhi Bijaghat Chowki Pandrapath P.S. Bagicha Tahsil Sanna, District - Jashpur (C.G.). versus ... Appellants 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Station House Officer, Outpost Pandrapath P.S. Bagicha District - Jashpur (C.G.). ... Respondent Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.08.01 16:57:50 +0530 2 For Appellants For State : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. J.K. Saxena, Adv. Mr. Vivek Sharma, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal 01 / 08 / 2025 Order on Board 1. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 22.07.2025, Sub- Inspector, Mr. Satish Kumar Sonwani, from Police Outpost – Pandrapath, Police Station – Bagicha, is present in person before this Court today. 2. This appeal has been filed by the accused/appellants under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, against the order dated 16.06.2025 passed by learned Special Judge SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Jashpur (C.G.) in Bail Application No. 120/2025 whereby the bail application filed by the appellants under Section 482 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 has been rejected. 3. The appellants are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.185/2024, registered at Police Station – Pandrapath, District-Bagicha (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(2), 115(2), 191(2), 151(3), 190, 118(1) of BNS, 2023 and Section 3(1)(R)(S) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act 1989'). 4. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 12.10.2024, complainant Madu Ram lodged a report alleging therein that his father, elder father and uncles have cultivated Bede crops over their own land bearing Khasra No. 158/1, 158/2 and 158/3 situated at Bijagha Jhagrahidand. On 07.10.2024 the accused persons have taken the Bede crops from the aforesaid land, which was objected by the 3 complainant and his family members, upon which, the appellants along with other co-accused persons committed assault with the complainant and his family members and due to the said assault, the complainant sustained head injuries which was caused by Charku & Mohar Sai with the help of back side of axe, whereas the other accused persons have assaulted with the uncle of complainant namely Pusoram and Surajram. Based on this, offence has been registered against the present appellants and other co- accused persons. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the instant case. He further submits that nothing has been seized from the present appellants, and even the appellants have not been named in the FIR. He further submits that there are a total of 13 accused persons, and except the present appellants, the other 7 co-accused persons have already been granted bail by the trial Court, who are named in the FIR. He also submits that there is no mention of cast related abuse or any offence under the Special Act. The prohibition of Section 18 of the Special Act does not apply. The 'order in question' of the trial court is not valid and appropriate. Therefore, the appellants may be granted anticipatory bail. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the state opposes the anticipatory bail application of the appellants. 7. The four victims appeared through video conferencing from the concerned DLSA and raised their objection in granting anticipatory bail to the appellants. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the matter of 4 Pavas Sharma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and another (CRA No. 806/2020, order dated 22.01.2021), has elaborately dealt with the issue pertaining to offence under the Act, 1989 and finds that merely because offence under Section 3(2)(V)(a) of the Act, 1989 was registered against the applicant, learned court below 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 Supreme Court in the case of Prathvi Raj Chouhan Vs. Union of India and Others 1 . Even though, offence under the Act of 1989 is registered, where application for grant of anticipatory bail is filed, the Court is required to apply its mind to the relevant provisions of law and considerations as specified by the Supreme Court in the case of Prathvi (supra) and if 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 bar created under Section 18 of the Act of 1989 shall not apply and in appropriate cases of exceptional nature, benefit of anticipatory bail could be admitted to the applicant. The learned Court below committed patent illegality in mechanically rejecting the bail application. Order of rejection, therefore, cannot be sustained in law and, therefore, set aside. 10. After hearing counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and looking to the material available on record it is evident that in the FIR, caste related allegation is not mentioned, even the appellants have not been named in the FIR and the other 7 co-accused persons who have been named in the FIR has already been granted bail by the trial Court. 1 (2020) 4 SCC 727 11. In such a situation, keeping all the above in view and in the 5 light of above judgments, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the appellants. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the appellants in connection with aforesaid crime number, they shall be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each, with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned arresting/investigating officer or the Court concerned, as the case may be, with the following terms and conditions: (i) that the appellants shall make themselves available for interrogation/medical test, etc., before the concerned investigating officer as and when required; (ii) that the appellants shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) that the appellants shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and (iv) that the appellants shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H.L. Sahu