Allowed

Rishi Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC17 Apr 2024CRA/435/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against the rejection of an anticipatory bail application. The court held that Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 does not bar bail when the complaint does not establish a prima facie offence under the Act. The court emphasized that the Supreme Court allows Section 438 CrPC applications in such scenarios.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was set aside; the appellant was directed to be released on anticipatory bail subject to a personal bond of ₹25,000/- and one surety, complying with standard bail conditions.

Rishi Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Bail and Remand | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

CRA No. 435 of 2024

¶5

Reserved on : 08.04.2024

¶6

Delivered on: 18.04.2024

¶7

Rishi Agrawal S/o Late Shri Ashok Kumar Agrawal, aged about 53 years, R/o B-30, Green Orchid, Avani Vihar, Daldal Sivani, Mova, P.S. Mova, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

------Appellant

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station- AJAK, Baloda Bazar, Tahsil and District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

------- Respondent

¶12

For Appellant : Mr. Pranjal Agrawal, Advocate For State : Mr. Umakant Singh Chandel, Dy. Adv. General Objector in-person : Mr. Ambrish Dutt Agrawal.

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge C.A.V. ORDER

¶14

Appellant has filed this appeal under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “Act of 1989”) for grant of anticipatory bail, being aggrieved with the order passed by learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, C.G. rejecting the bail application filed under Section 438 of CrPC on 19.02.2024, as he apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No. 0001/2023 registered at Police Station AJAK, Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act of 1989.

¶15

Case of the prosecution is that, complainant Ambrish Dutt Agrawal submitted an application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC before the Special Judge (Atrocities), Baloda Bazar mentioning therein that the appellant along with others have sold the certain piece of land, details of which is mentioned in the written complaint as also the part

¶16

¶17

of F.I.R. which was already vested with the State Government pursuant to the ceiling proceedings initiated against Sukhdev Lal Agrawal, Shrawan Agrawal and Shail Kumari Agrawal. The allegation against the appellant is that he sold part of the land bearing khasra No. 380/8 which was also part of declaration of the competent authority that the lands mentioned therein, including Khasra No. 380/8 are vested in the State Government. Learned Special Judge (Atrocities) considering the complaint, directed for registration of the offence, pursuant thereto crime was registered on 14.07.2023 stating that the aforementioned land has been sold in between 10.03.1995 and 01.03.2016.

¶18

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant is not directly related to Sukhdev Lal Agrawal, Shravan Agrawal or Shail Kumari Agrawal. The land bearing Khasra No. 380/8 was initially recorded in the name of Shankar Lal Agrawal (Maternal Uncle) and as per revenue records it was given in partition to the appellant, who is son of Ashok Agrawal, in the year 1995 and thereafter some portion of the land has been sold. The land was not sold to any of the member belonging to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community, hence, the provisions of Act of 1989 would not be attracted. Learned Family Court has dismissed the application only taking note of the fact that there is bar under Section 18 of the Act of 1989 in entertaining the application. He contended that the appellant was not aware of the Ceiling proceedings, if any initiated against Sukhdev Lal, Shravan Kumar or Shail Kumari Agrawal and is belonging to a member of foreign family. He was not aware that some order/ declaration of the competent authority under the Ceiling Act of vesting the land bearing khasra no. 380/8 with the State Government was passed. There is prima facie good case in his

¶19

¶20

favour. Total nine persons have been made accused in the F.I.R. out of which seven were granted bail, two by the High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2152/2023 (Anticipatory Bail) and five regular bail by the Special Court.

¶21

On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the submission of learned counsel for the appellant. However, he does not dispute the submission of learned counsel for appellant that against the appellant there is no allegation of selling portion of the land bearing khasra No. 380/8 to any of the member belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community. However, he would submit that the land bearing khasra No. 380/8 which was declared to be vested to the State Government has been sold by the appellant.

¶22

Mr. Ambrish Dutt Agrawal, objector-in person would also oppose the submission of learned counsel for appellant and would submit that the competent authority under the Ceiling Act has passed an order that Sukhdev Lal Agrawal, Shrawan Agrawal and Shail Kumari Agrawal were in possession of excess land than that of their entitlement. They submitted their choice for retaining the land bearing khasra number mentioned therein, with respect to their entitlement. Other lands including khasra no. 380/8 were vested with the State Government. However, he does not dispute the submission of learned counsel for appellant that the land was shown to be recorded in the name of Shankar Lal Agrawal and the documents prepared by the revenue officer vide Annexure A-3 dated 30.03.1995 however submits that all the accused persons have conspired for getting their name entered in the revenue records and to eliminate the Government property.

¶23

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

¶24

¶25

Perusal of the order Annexure A-6 in CRA No. 2152 of 2023 dated 22.01.2024 would show that the appeal with a prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellants therein was allowed observing that those appellant have executed the sale deed in favour of the persons belonging to OBC category, no prima facie offence under the Act of 1989 is made out as shown in the F.I.R.

¶26

Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India and others reported in (2020) 4 SCC 727 has observed thus:-

¶27

“ 11. Concerning the applicability of provisions of section 438 Cr.PC, 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.

¶28

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.”

¶29

In the above decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that application under Section 438 of CrPC can be entertained and considered where the Courts comes to the conclusion that no offence as alleged under the Atrocities Act would be made out against appellants/applicants. There is no absolute bar for entertaining application for anticipatory bail, only because the offence under the Act of 1989 is also registered along with other offences against any

¶30

¶31

of the person/applicant/appellant.

¶32

Reverting back to the facts of the present case, a complaint is filed before the Special Judge (Atrocities) not by any member belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe but by one of the members of the same family but from different branch. The allegation against the appellant is that he sold certain portion of land bearing khasra no. 380/8 which on the date of execution of the sale deed or mutation of his name by the Patwari was recorded in the name of some private person, however said land was consented by the original owner to be vested with the Government.

¶33

From the aforementioned facts it is prima facie appearing that there is no material to say that the appellant has committed any offence under the Act of 1989 and therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Court below erred in rejecting the application under Section 438 of CrPC filed by the appellants on the sole ground that it is barred under Section 18 of the Act of 1989.

¶34

So far as merits of the case is concerned, considering the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, submission of counsel for respective parties and the discussion made above, I feel inclined to allow this anticipatory bail application.

¶35

Accordingly, appeal is allowed, order impugned passed by learned court below is set aside and it is directed that in the event of arrest of appellant in connection with the crime in question (1/2023), he shall be released on anticipatory bail by the Officer arresting him on his executing a personal bond in the sum of ₹ 25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned arresting Officer. Appellant shall also abide by the following conditions:

¶36

(i) that the appellant shall make himself available for interrogation before the Investigation Officer as and when required;

¶37

(ii) that the appellant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any

¶38

¶39

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

(iii) that the appellant shall not act, in any manner, which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and

¶41

(iv) that the appellant shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶44

/pwn

Rishi Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rishi Agrawal 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raja Ram Netam Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Kaliram Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Amit @ Balla Kuldeep Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Deepak Dhamecha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pomeshwar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bhupendra Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh