Allowed

Naresh Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC1 Jul 2022CRA/780/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against refusal of anticipatory bail in a scheduled caste atrocity case. High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed the appeal, holding that exceptional circumstances and prima facie strong case negate the statutory bar under Sections 18 and 18A of the Atrocities Act, thus granting bail.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; anticipatory bail granted subject to personal bond of Rs.10,000/- with one surety and specific conditions including appearance in court and no inducement.

Naresh Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Caste Atrocities | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

CRA No. 780 of 2022

¶4

Naresh Yadav S/o Manrakhan Yadav Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Datunpani, Gram Panchayat Kmarema, Chowki In Charge Pandrapath, Tehsil - Sanna, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

¶5

Basudev Yadav S/o Avdhesh Yadav Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Datunpani, Gram Panchayat Kmarema, Chowki In Charge Pandrapath, Tehsil - Sanna, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

¶6

Prakash Ram S/o Kaleshwar Ram Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Datunpani, Gram Panchayat Kmarema, Chowki In Charge Pandrapath, Tehsil - Sanna, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

¶7

---- Appellants

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Ajak Chowki, Incharge Pandrapath, Tehsil - Sanna, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

---- Respondent

¶11

For Appellants	: Mr. Dilman Rati Minz and MR.
	Suresh Kumar Dewangan, Adv.
For Respondent/State	: Mr. B.P. Banjare, Dy. G.A.

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board

¶13

01.07.2022

¶14

The accused/appellants have filed this appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.36/2022 registered at police station – AJAK, Jashpur, District – Jashpur, C.G. for the offence punishable under Sections 294 and 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(ध) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989.

¶15

Prosecution case, in nutshell, is that, the complainant lodged a report

¶16

stating in it that on 03.03.2022, the present applicants abused him in the name of mother, sister and in the name of caste and also threatened him to do work of bore without any allotment of budget and also creating pressure to shift the Gothan from village Khairapath to village Datunpani, they also demanded money for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. Based on such allegations, the offence has been registered against the present appellants.

¶17

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case, as the appellants have made a complaint against complainant that on 23.02.2022 before the Tehsildar Sanna with regard to corruption of making forged muster roll, public pond etc. and also gave notice for picketing against such corruption, therefore, the complainant has made a false FIR, so he prays that the application may be allowed and appellants be granted anticipatory bail.

¶18

On the other hand learned counsel for the State opposes the submission made by counsel for the appellants and submits that there is a provision under Section 18 and 18A of the Atrocities Act, so the appellants does not deserve for grant of bail. Today the complainant has been contacted telephone and he submits his objection in respect of bail application.

¶19

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, having considered the nature and quality of evidence collected by prosecution, as is reflected from the case diary, considering that the complaint made against the complainant about his corruption and further considering that the complainant has make such type of complaint against the present appellants, so there is prima facie strong case established in favour of the appellants and false accusation may be made by the complainant,

¶20

so this Court is of the view that considering all these such aspects the bar under Section 18 and 18(A) of the Atrocities Act is not attracted, conclusion of trial is likely to take some time, without commenting on merits of the case I am of the opinion that present is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellants.

¶21

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

¶22

(a) he shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required,

¶23

(b) 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 fact to the Court or to any police officer,

¶24

¶25

(d) he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial,

¶26

(e) he shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

¶29

yasmin

Naresh Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naresh Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manish Nishad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chandrika Rathiya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rahul Das Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Sushila Nishad Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Imamuddin @ Lakhtu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Omprakash Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh