Raja Kumar Bansod Vs State of Chhattisgarh

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (henceforth 'the Act of 1989') has been preferred against the order dated 21.9.2023 by which learned Special Judge (Atrocities) Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa (CG) rejected application of appellants for grant of anticipatory bail to them in connection with Crime No.2/2023 registered at Police Station AJAK, Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa for commission of offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 325, 341, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Sections 3 (2) (va) & 3 (1) (r) & (s)

¶17

2

¶18

of the Act of 1989.

¶19

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant lodged written report in the concerned police station stating that appellant No.2-Golu Yadav and the complainant are driver of trailers by profession. On 5.11.2022 the complainant was going to Champa from Jairamnagar in his trailer vehicle, which was loaded with raw iron. On the way, appellant No.2 rashly overtook the vehicle of complainant, which was objected by complainant whereupon appellant No.2 abused him in filthy language as also by his caste and moved ahead with his vehicle giving threat to him. On the same day at about 02:00 to 3:00 p.m., appellant No.2 and co-accused persons got stopped vehicle of complainant near Tarod Chowk four lane; pulled out the complainant and his relative Satish Bharadwaj from the vehicle, abused them filthily and assaulted them by means of belt, club and plastic pipe. As a result, complainant suffered injuries on both his shoulders, chest, head and other parts of body. His three front teeth were also broken. Based on said written report, the instant crime is registered against the appellants.

¶20

At the outset, learned counsel for appellants submits that he wants to withdraw this appeal so far as it relates to appellant No.2 Golu Yadav. He, however, prays for issuance of a direction to the Court below to consider and decide regular bail application of appellant No.2 on the same day.

¶21

3

¶22

With respect to appellant Nos.1 & 3, he submits that against these appellants there is no specific allegation that they have abused the complainant and his relative Satish Bharadwaj by their caste. They are not known to complainant, therefore, they are not aware of the fact that complainant belongs to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe community, hence, the offence under the provisions of the Act of 1989 would not be attracted against them.

¶23

On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposing submissions of learned counsel for appellants No.1 & 3 and read out contents of written complaint lodged by complainant in support of his contention. However, upon asking, he submits that allegations of stopping the vehicle of complainant, pulling out complainant and his relative from the vehicle and hurling abuses in the name of caste are against appellant No.2. Allegation against appellant No.1 & 3 is that they have assaulted complainant and his relative Satish Bharadwaj.

¶24

Learned counsel for the complainant/objector opposing the submissions of learned counsel for appellants No.1 & 2, would submit that all the appellants have jointly committed the offence.

¶25

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents filed along with appeal.

¶26

Complainant has lodged written report narrating the entire incident. As submitted by learned State Counsel, it is the

¶27

4

¶28

appellant No.2- Golu Yadav who pulled out complainant from the vehicle and abused him by his caste. In the complaint there is no mention that appellant No.1 & 3 are known to the complainant or they were aware that the complainant. belongs to scheduled caste community. The Court below rejected anticipatory bail application of the appellants No.1 & 3 taking note of the provisions contained in Section 18 of the Act of 1989.

¶29

In the case of Prathvi Raj Chouhan vs. Union of India , reported in (2020) 4 SCC 727 , Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering applicability of the provisions under Section 438 of CrPC in the cases registered under the provisions of the Act of 1989, has observed as under:-

¶30

“11. Concerning the applicability of provisions of Section 438 CrPC, it shall not apply to the cases under Act of 1989. However, if the complaint does not make out a prima facie case for applicability of the provisions of the Act of 1989, the bar created by Section 18 and 18A(i) shall not apply. We have clarified this aspect while deciding the review petitions.

¶31

33.I would only add a caveat with the observation and emphasize 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 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.”

¶32

5

¶33

In the above cited decision, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that provision under Section 438 CrPC shall not apply to the cases under the Act of 1989. If the complainant does not make out prima faci e case, the bar created under Section 18 and 18 (A) (i) of the Act of 1989 shall not apply. In the case at hand, from the allegations made in written complaint it is appearing that there is no allegation against appellant Nos.1 & 3 that they abused the complainant by his caste. It is also not appearing that appellant No.1 & 3 are aware of the fact that complainant belongs to scheduled caste community, therefore, in the light of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Prathvi Raj Chouhan (supra ), in the considered opinion of this Court, present is the fit case where appellant No.1 & 2 can be extended benefit of anticipatory bail.

¶34

11.Taking into consideration facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations and submissions of learned counsel for both sides, without commenting anything on merits of case, I am inclined to extend benefit of anticipatory bail to appellant No.1 & 3.

¶35

Accordingly, this criminal appeal on behalf of appellant No.1 & 3 is allowed, the order dated 21.9.2023, so far as it relates to appellant No.1 & 3, is set aside and it is directed that in the event of arrest of appellant No.1-Raja Kumar Bansod and appellant No.3-Prem Kumar Yadav in connection with the crime in question, they be released on anticipatory bail

¶36

6

¶37

by the Officer arresting them on their executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer. They shall also abide by the following conditions :

¶38

(i) that they shall make themselves available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer as and when required;

¶39

(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;

¶40

This criminal appeal so far as it relates to appellant No.2Golu Yadav is hereby dismissed and the order of Court below rejecting anticipatory bail application of appellant No.2 is hereby maintained. However, in case appellant No.2 surrenders before the Court below and files an application for grant of regular bail, the same may be considered, if possible, on the same in accordance with law.

¶41

Certified copy as per rules.

¶42

Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶43

roshan/-

Raja Kumar Bansod v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raja Kumar Bansod v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Xyz Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Hassu @ Hasan Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rakhi Shrivas Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Gagan Sona Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sanju Kujur Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Alok Ranjan Sundi Vs State of Chhattisgarh