Dileshwar Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:4540

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRA No. 37 of 2025

¶6

1 - Dileshwar Yadav S/o Mohan Yadav Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Pathrai, Mainpat, Police Station Kamleshwar, Tahsil Narmadapur, District Surguja (C.G.)

¶7

2 - Rajkumar Yadav S/o Sobharam Yadav Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Pathrai, Mainpat, Police Station Kamleshwar, Tahsil Narmadapur, District Surguja (C.G.)

¶8

... Appellant(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.)

¶11

... Respondent(s)

¶12

For Appellant(s)	: Shri Anurag Singh, Advocate.
For the State	: Shri Karan Bahrani, Panel Lawwyer
For the complainant	: Shri Amarnath Pandey, Advocate.

¶13

Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma

¶14

Order on Board

¶15

24/01/2025

¶16

NARESHKUMAR Digitally signedby NARESHKUMAR KAMDEDate: KAMDE 2025.01.2817:32:39 +0530

¶17

The present appeal under Section 14-(A) (2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is filed by the appellants in connection with Crime No. 884/2024 registered at

¶18

2

¶19

Police Station Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) for an offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(2), 3(5) of BNS and Sections 3 (1) (5),10 of the Scheduled Castes & the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for grant of anticipatory bail, which has been rejected by the learned Special Judge, Atrocities (Prevention of Atrocities Act) 1989, Ambikapur, District- Surguja on 30/12/2024.

¶20

Complainant who is Anganbadi worker has made a written complaint before the Police Station against Mohan Yadav and Raj Kumar Yadav using filthy and caste-related language and was threatened to kill her.

¶21

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that a civil suit has been filed by the appellants against the complainant and her family members before First Civil Judge Class-1, Ambikapur, which is pending consideration and just to harass the appellants FIR has been lodged against the them. He further submits that since there is dispute between appellants and complainant with respect to land, a false case has been made against them. He submits that earlier also FIR was lodged by the complainant against the appellants on 19/10/2020 and there is no evidence or eye witnesses with respect to said incident, therefore, they may be granted anticipatory bail.

¶22

Today victim has appeared before this Court through video conferencing from the concerned DLSA and raised her objection. Her statement is taken on record.

¶23

On the other hand learned State counsel as well as counsel for the complainant have objected the prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellants. State counsel has pointed out that there is two previous antecedents against the appellants in which Crime No. 3/2015 in S.T. No.42/2016 has been convicted by the Special Court, Surguja.

¶24

3

¶25

In this regard, learned counsel for the appellants contended that this Court has suspend the sentence and granted bail to the appellants.

¶26

On perusal of record prima facie case is made out against the appellants under Scheduled Castes & the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 and Section 18 of the Act specifically provided that Section 438 of the Code not to apply to persons committing an offence under the Act. It is also pertinent to mention here that Section 18 (2) of the Act specifically provides that the provisions of section 438 i.e. anticipatory bail of the Code shall not apply to a case under this Act, notwithstanding any judgment or order or direction of any Court, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the appellants on anticipatory bail.

¶27

Accordingly, the bail application of the appellants Dileshwar Yadav and Rajkumar Yadav filed under Section 14-(A) (2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in connection with Crime No. 884/2024 registered at Police Station Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) for an offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(2), 3(5) of BNS and Sections 3 (1)(5),10 of the Scheduled Castes & the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is rejected .

¶28

Sd/-Sd/-Sd/-

¶29

( Arvind Kumar Verma ) JUDGE

¶30

Kamde

Dileshwar Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dileshwar Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subhash Rajak Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jay Sahu @ Jayendra Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Smt. Kumudani Kerketta Vs Amit Katariya

Raja @ Chhotu Ghoghare (wrongly mentioned as Chhote in Annexure A-1) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Anil Kumar Magre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bhuwan Lal Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh