[ad_1]
Chattisgarh High Court
Devendra Nath Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 14 July, 2025
1
Digitally
signed by A
ANNAJEE
A RAO
ANNAJEE
Date:
RAO 2025.07.16
14:06:12
+0530
2025:CGHC:32797
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 1231 of 2025
1 - Devendra Nath Sahu S/o Late Shri Netram Sahu Aged About 41
Years R/o Village - Kenapali, P.S. - Dabhara, District - Sakti (C.G.)
2 - Homeshwar Sahu S/o Late Shri Netram Sahu Aged About 36
Years R/o Village - Kenapali, P.S. - Dabhara, District - Sakti (C.G.)
... Appellants
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through , S.H.O., P.S. - Dabhara, District -
Sakti (C.G.) ... Respondent
For the applicants : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Karan Kumar Bahrani, Panel Lawyer
For the Mr. D. Kushwaha, Advocate on behalf of Mr.
complainant P.K. Patel, Advocate
(Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Order on Board
14.07.2025
1. This appeal is filed under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for
2
grant of ranticipatory bail to the appellants as they are apprehending
arrest in Crime No. 195/2025 registered at P.S. Dabhara, District
Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh for the offence punishable under
Sections 296, 351(2), 333, 3(5) of B.N.S. (corresponding sections of
IPC, 294, 506(2), 452, 34) and Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
2. By impugned order dated 24.06.2025 passed by the learned
Special Court, Janjgir Champa the application ( B.A. No. 480/2025)
filed by the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail has been rejected,
which is under challenge in this appeal.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the house of complainant
Lekh Ram and his nephew Ghanshyam Banjare are closely situated
to each other. On 03.06.2025, the accused persons of the same
village namely Hameshwar Sahu and Devendra Nath Sahu assaulted
his nephew Ghanshyam on which a meeting was called in the village
wherein the accused applicants were not present. Again on
09.06.2025 at about 11.30 pm, applicants along with other persons
came in four vehicles and created panic in front of their house. It is
alleged that appellant Homeshvar blocked the network of
complainant’s house and then the applicants along with others
forcibly entered into the house of complainant and his nephew and
hurled abuses in the name of caste “Chamar” and assaulted them
and further threatened to kill them by burning with petrol and with
a rifle. At the time of incident, the appellants were also carrying
knives.
3
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the incident
took place on 09.06.2025 and with the delay of 5 days the report was
lodged on 14.06.2025 and no plausible explanation has been given in
this regard. He further submits that prior to this, the appellant
Devendranath Sahu had lodged a report against the complainant
Lekh Ram Banjare and Ghanshyam Banjare etc., on 09.06.2025
itself, on which, crime number No.190/2025 was registered, and the
appellants have been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that
appellant no.1 is a government teacher and there are no criminal
antecedents against the applicants, therefore, considering all these
aspects, the applicants may be granted anticipatory bail.
5. Per contra, learned State Counsel and counsel for the objector
oppose the prayer for bail. Learned counsel for the objector
vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that there is bar
under Section 18 and 18-A of the SC/ST Act, therefore, the bail
cannot be granted to the appellants.
6. The complainant has appeared along with his counsel and
recorded objection to grant bail.
7. Opposing the said submissions and the objection of the
complainant, learned counsel for the appellant submits that this is
not the case where the incident took place on the ground of cast
based atrocities as prior to filing report by the complainant, appellant
Devendranath Sahu had lodged a report against the complainant and
others on 09.06.2025 itself, on which, crime number No.190/2025
was registered and as an arm twisting, the complainant has lodged
report against the applicants to falsely implicate them. He submits
4
that the complainant being member of such category has taken the
advantage to inclupate the appellants. He placed reliance on a
decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Union of India Vs. State
of Maharashtra and others (2020) 4 SCC 761, wherein it has been
held thus in para 7 :
“7. Section 18 of the 1989 Act has been
enacted to take care of an inherent deterrence and
to instill a sense of protection amongst the
members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes. It is submitted that any dilution of the
same would shake the very objective of the
mechanism to prevent the offences of atrocities.
The directions issued would cause a miscarriage of
justice even in deserving cases. With a view to
object apprehended misuse of the law, no such
direction can be issued. In case there is no prima
facie case made out under the 1989 Act,
anticipatory bail can be granted. The same was
granted in the case in question also.”
8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and
perused the material available on record.
9. Having considered the submissions made by the parties and the
fact that the the dispute was existing between the two parties prior to
the incident and on the basis of the appellants party’s report
regarding the incident of 09.06.2025, Crime No.190/2025 was
registered against the complainant on the same day and also
considering the fact that the report of the complainant is delayed by
5 days and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of
India Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2020) 4 SCC 761, I
am of the opinion that it is a fit case where the anticipatory bail can
be granted to the appellants.
10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order
5
dated 24.06.2025 is set aside.
11. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the appellants, on
each of them furnishing a personal bond in sum of Rs.25,000/ with
one surety each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting
officer, they shall be released on bail on the following conditions :-
(a) they shall make themselves available for interrogation by a
police officer as and when required,
(b) 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 from disclosing such fact to the Court or to any
police officer,
(c ) they shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair
and expeditious trial,
(d) they shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date
given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial,
(e) they shall not involve themselves in any offence of similar
nature, in future.
Cc as per rules.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
Rao
[ad_2]
Source link