Imran Khan v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 1303 of 2021

1. Imran Khan S/o late Shri Banne Khan, aged about 36 years, R/o Ward No.7, Akaltara, P.S. & Tahsil Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.).

2. Parvej Khan S/o late Shri Banne Khan, aged about 64 years, R/o Ward No.7, Akaltara, P.S. & Tahsil Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa ---- Appellants

Versus

• State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Police Station - AJK, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ---- Respondent For Appellants :

Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate For Respondent :

Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, P.L.

For Objector :

Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate.

Hon'ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey Order on Board /11/2021 Heard.

Admit.

1.

The appellants have preferred this criminal appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for grant of anticipatory bail, as they apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime No.07/2021, registered at Police Station - Ajk, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 506/34 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocity), Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act, 1989).

2.

The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 01.07.2021, it is alleged that the appellants abused complainant Pradeep Kumar Anant in the name of caste in public place and also threatened to kill him. Based on this FIR has been registered against the applicants.

3.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that the appellants never assaulted the complainant knowingly that he belongs to reserved category and the applicants have not uttered even a single word about complainant's caste. Therefore, the present applicants may be granted anticipatory bail.

4.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the bail application.

5.

Learned counsel for objector vehemently opposed the bail application and submits that there is direct allegation against the present applicants that they assaulted the complainant knowingly that he belongs to reserved category. Therefore, the anticipatory bail may not be granted to the appellants.

6.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7.

The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the matter of Pavas Sharma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and another (CRA No. 806/2020, order dated 22.01.2021), has elaborately dealt with the issue pertaining to offence under the Act, 1989 and finds that merely because offence under Section 3(2)(V)(a) of the Act, 1989 was registered against the applicant, learned court below rejected the application holding it to be not maintainable in view of the provisions contained under Section 18 of the Act of 1989, without taking into

consideration the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Prathvi Raj Chouhan Vs. Union of India and Others

1. Even though, offence under the Act of 1989 is registered, where application for grant of anticipatory bail is filed, the Court is required to apply its mind to the relevant provisions of law and considerations as specified by the Supreme Court in the case of Prathvi (supra) and if material on record leads to satisfaction that the complaint does not make out a prima facie case, for applicability of the provisions of the Act of 1989, the bar created under Section 18 of the Act of 1989 shall not apply and in appropriate cases of exceptional nature, benefit of anticipatory bail could be admitted to the applicant. The learned Court below committed patent illegality in mechanically rejecting the bail application. Order of rejection, therefore, cannot be sustained in law, and therefore set aside.

8.

After hearing counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of the order passed by this Court in Pavas (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the appellants. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the appellants in connection with aforesaid crime number, they shall be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned arresting/investigating ofÏcer or the court concerned, as the case may be, with the following terms and conditions:

(i) that the appellants shall make themselves available for interrogation before the concerned investigating ofÏcer as and (2020) 4 SCC 727

when required;

(ii) that the appellants shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police ofÏcer; (iii) that the appellants shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and (iv) that the appellants shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial.

Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge pekde