Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police S
Case Details
-1- 2025:CGHC:44302 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1623 of 2025 1 - Shankar Lal Verma S/o Shri Guharam Verma Aged About 61 Years 2 - Smt. Narbadiya Bai Verma W/o Shri Shankar Lal Verma Aged About 51 Years Both are R/o House No. 16, Ward No. 11, Mahuljhopadi Tappa, Tahsil Dongargaon, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant (s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station – AJAK Rajnandgaon, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate For State :
Legal Reasoning
as there is no prima facie case against appellant of commission of offence under Section 3 of the Act of 1989. In support of his contentions, he places reliance upon decision in case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2020) 4 SCC 727 and Shajan Skaria Vs. State of Kerala and Anr. 2024 SCC Online SC 2249. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes submission of learned counsel for appellants and would submit -4- that there is specific allegation of abusing the complainant by co-accused /appellant No.2 and at that relevant point of time, appellant No.1 was also present and denied to compensate complainant for loss suffered by him due to mischief of other co- accused including son of appellant No.1. He however do not dispute submission of learned counsel for appellants with regard to date of accident on 05.01.2025 and lodging of FIR on 14.07.2025. 5. Pursuant to notice issued complainant/victim appeared before this Court on 25.08.2025 through virtual mode from concerned DLSA and raised objection in grant of anticipatory bail to appellants. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the impugned order passed by trial Court on application under Section 482 of BNSS rejecting bail application of appellants. 7. From submission of learned counsel for the State upon reading of FIR would show that initially dispute arose with Sanjay Bahadur and Netu Verma on cutting of branches of trees and setting fire on it, due to which, agricultural field of complainant also affected and crops of organic farming standing on it were destroyed. As per contents of FIR on the date 11.01.2025 when complainant visited house of appellants seeking compensation of the crops destroyed in fire, appellant No.1 refused to pay any -5- compensation and appellant No.2 has abused complainant and stated that go and file case before competent Court and obtain order. It is also allegation that she has abused complainant by referring his caste. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan (supra) has observed thus: “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 Sections 18 and 18-A(i) shall not apply. We have clarified this aspect while deciding the review petitions. X X X X X X 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 emphasise 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 -6- 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 classes of 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.” 8. In case of Shajan Skaria (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that provision under Section 18 of the Act of 1989 does not create an absolute bar on considering application for grant of anticipatory bail, however, High Court while considering grant of anticipatory bail can examine whether prima facie case under the Act of 1989 is made out or not and observed thus: “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 -7- 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.” 9. Considering entirety of facts of case, further that allegedly at the time of destroying branches of tress and setting fire affecting agricultural filed of complainant, appellants were not present on spot. Complainant after about more than 5 days from the first incident has visited house of appellants seeking compensation against crops destroyed in fire which is alleged to have been set on fire by Sanjay Bahadur, co-accused, playing mischief, keeping in mind the entire allegation as alleged in FIR, which was lodged after about 5 months, I am of the view that appellants succeeded in making out an exceptional case for grant of anticipatory bail. 10.Accordingly, appeal is allowed. Impugned order passed by learned Special Judge is set aside . It is directed that in the event of arrest of appellants in connection with aforesaid crime, they shall be released on anticipatory bail by the Officer arresting them on each of them executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned arresting officer. Appellants shall also abide by the following conditions :- -8- “(i) that the appellants shall make themselves available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer as and when required; (ii) the appellants 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 to any police officer; Certified copy as per rules. (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Sd/-/--/---/-/---/-/- Praveen
Arguments
Mr. K.K.Baharani, Panel Lawyer S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 01/09/2025 1. Appellants have filed this appeal under Section 14 -A (2) of the Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.09.02 14:19:21 +0530 Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1989”) as they are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime -2- No.1/2025 registered at Police Station- AJAK Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 326 (f), 329 (3), 296, 3 (5) of BNS and Section 3 (1) (d), 3 (2) (iii), 3 (2) (va) [wrongly mentioned as “3 (2) (v9)”] of the Act of 1989. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that there was some dispute of complainant with Netu Verma and Sanjay Bahadur as agricultural field of Netu is adjoining to agricultural field of complainant. Due to cutting of branches of trees standing on ridge (esM+), some dispute took place and it is also alleged that Sanjay Bahadur put fire in agricultural field on which complainant had done organic farming by grafting. Destroyed the valuable standing crops. Thereafter, a meeting took place in which complainant asked for compensation of crop burnt due to fire put by Sanjay Bahadur. It is also allegation that when complainant went to house of appellants asking them for compensation, he was threatened and also abused by appellant No.2 by caste and filthy language. Based on report. aforementioned crime was registered against appellants. 3. Learned counsel for appellants would submit that dispute arose when crops sown by complainant destroyed due to fire put by Sanjay Bahadur, co-accused. Against registration of FIR said co- accused Sanjay Bahadur has filed CRMP No. 2376 of 2025 seeking quashment of FIR lodged against him, which came up -3- for hearing on 31.07.2025 before Division Bench of this Court and an interim protection of stay of arrest of co-accused has been granted in his favour. He also contended that there is inordinate delay in lodging of FIR. According to contents of FIR incident is of 05.01.2025 and the report was lodged on 14.07.2025. Allegation leveled against appellants that they have committed offence as defined under Section 3 of the Act of 1989 is an afterthought only to implicate them in a graver offence. He also submits that allegation of commission of offence under Section 3 of the Act of 1989 is only to mount pressure. No offence would be attracted as defined under Section 3 of the Act of 1989. Hence, appeal be allowed and appellants may be granted anticipatory bail. He also contended that learned trial Court has dismissed the application for grant of anticipatory bail only considering the provision under Section 18 of the Act of 1989. Said finding recorded by learned trial Court is erroneous