Dismissed

Deepak Thakur v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC11 Feb 2024CRA/76/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed an appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, against the rejection of an anticipatory bail application. The Court held that the rejection was not erroneous due to the statutory bar under Section 18 of the Act. The Court observed that the appellant may apply for regular bail if they surrender before the lower court.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed. Observation made that lower court may consider regular bail application if appellant surrenders.

Deepak Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Quashing and FIR | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

CRA No. 76 of 2024

¶5

Deepak Thakur S/o Raj Kumar Singh Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Birkon, Chowki Naila P.S. Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.)

¶6

---- Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station SC/ST Janjgir District Janjgir Champa (C.G.)

¶9

---- Respondent

¶10

For Appellants :Mr. Aashutosh Shukla, Advocate For State :Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. Govt. Advocate. For Complainant :Mr. Purnachand, Advocate.

¶11

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

¶12

Order On Board

¶13

12/02/2024

¶14

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 13.12.2022 by which learned Special Judge, (Atrocities), Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh rejected application of appellants for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.358/2023 registered at Police Station SC/ST Thana (Janjgir) District Janjgir-Champa (CG) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 294, 506, 323, 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3 (2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for brevity 'the Act of 1989').

¶15

Case of prosecution, in brief, is that when the appellant along with three others were interrogating and assaulting the suspect of theft of mobile phones in 11^th Battallion Putpura, Complainant Vinay Kumar reached on spot and asked the

¶16

¶17

appellant and other co-accused persons not to assault said person so badly, the matter of theft can be reported to the higher officials. On this, appellant and other co-accused got enraged and started abusing and assaulting the complainant by means of club, hands and fists. Incident was reported to the higher officials and thereafter incident was reported to police.

¶18

Learned counsel for appellant submits that appellant has not committed any offence as alleged. Even if the allegation is accepted in its entirety, appellant and other co-accused persons have caught one person, who was suspect of committing theft of mobile phones from the Battalion, and it is the complainant, who came there to save that suspect. There was no wilful assault upon the complainant, therefore, no offence as alleged against the appellant would be made out.

¶19

Learned State counsel opposing submissions made by counsel for appellants, submits that there is specific allegation against the appellant of abusing and assaulting the complainant, a person belonging to Scheduled Caste community. Learned Special Court has rightly rejected the application observing that anticipatory bail application with respect to appellant is not maintainable in view of bar contained in Section 18 of the Act, 1989.

¶20

Learned counsel for complainant adopts that arguments made by the learned State counsel and submits that there is no error in the impugned order rejecting the application for anticipatory bail as not maintainable.

¶21

I have heard learned counsel for both the parties.

¶22

Taking into consideration the nature of allegations, submission of counsel for State, the contents of FIR and statement of complainant, which is read over by counsel for State, in view of bar under Section 18 of the Act, 1989, I do not find any error

¶23

¶24

in the order impugned.

¶25

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. However, considering the nature of allegation, manner in which the offence, as alleged, was taken place and further considering that appellant is a government servant, it is observed that in the event appellant surrenders before the Court below concerned and files an application under Section 439 of CrPC for grant of regular bail, learned Court below concerned may consider and decide the same expeditiously, if possible on the same day in accordance with law.

¶26

Certified copy as per rules.

¶27

Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶28

Nisha

Deepak Thakur v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Thakur 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

Mukesh Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jitendra Chandra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Suresh Kumar Sarthi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shiva Kumar Chandravanshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bilal Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Tobha Bai Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh