Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Anju Diwan vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 4 August, 2025
1
Digitally
signed by
SOURABH
2025:CGHC:38402
SOURABH PATEL
PATEL Date:
2025.08.05
15:22:36
+0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 1399 of 2025
1 - Smt. Anju Diwan W/o Late Vinay Dhar Diwan Aged About 46
Years Caste Brahmin, R/o Ward No. 16, Hotel Diwan Inn Opposite
Old Civil Court, Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa C.G.
2 - Pratham Dhar Diwan S/o Late Vinay Dhar Diwan Aged About 23
Years Caste Brahmin, R/o Ward No. 16, Hotel Diwan Inn Opposite
Old Civil Court, Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa C.G.
... Appellants
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Special Police Station
(Scheduled Castes Welfare) Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa C.G.
... Respondent
For Appellants : Mr. Somnath Verma, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, P.L.
For Objector : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Order On Board
04/08/2025
1. This appeal u/s 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short “the SC/ST
Act”) has been preferred by the appellant against the order
dated 03.07.2025 passed by the Special Judge, SC & ST
2
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa
(C.G.) in B.P. No.513/2025 whereby the application filed by the
appellant under Section 482 of BNSS apprehending his arrest in
connection with Crime No.5/2025 registered at Special Police
Station (Scheduled Castes’ Welfare) Janjgir, District – Janjgir
Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296,
115(2), 351(3), 324, 329(3) and 3(5) of BNS and Section 3(1)(g),
3(2)(5), 3(1)(m)(n) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has
been rejected.
2. The case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 08.06.2025, at 7:52
Pm, the complainant, Gautam Kuldeep, submitted a written
report to the Ajak Police Station in Janjgir stating that on
06.06.2025, he had sent his younger brother, Deepak Kuldeep,
to oversee the construction of a boundary wall on their private
land. While the complainant was away on personal work in
Janjgir, he returned and visited the construction site. At about
3:00 PM, he and his brother, Kishore Kuldeep, saw Anju Diwan
and her son, Pratham Diwan, leaving the site in a car. Upon
inspection, they found that the ongoing boundary wall
construction had been demolished, and Deepak Kuldeep and
the laborers were not present. Later, Deepak Kuldeep arrived at
the site, visibly shaken, and informed them that while the
laborers were working on the boundary wall, Anju Diwan,
Pratham Diwan, and 12-15 other individuals arrived at the site,
abused them using filthy language, and threatened to kill them,
using caste-based slurs. They allegedly chased the laborers and
Deepak Kuldeep, who barely escaped. The complainant claims
3
that the demolition of the boundary wall resulted in financial
losses amounting to Rs. 1,11,100. He alleges that Anju Diwan
and her son, Pratham Diwan, have been repeatedly and forcibly
demolishing the construction on his private land, causing him
financial and mental harassment, and humiliation. Based on
the said report, offence has been registered against the present
appellants.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants
are innocent and have been falsely implicated by the
complainant in this case due to civil dispute between the
parties. It is further submitted that there was an ancestral land
in Village Kirari, recorded in the name of Vinay Dhar Diwan
(Pratham Dhar’s grandfather) and some land was sold to
Gautam Kuldeep, but possession wasn’t handed over due to
joint holding and when Gautam Kuldeep started constructing a
boundary wall, the applicants objected, citing it was on their
land. He further submitted that a civil suit (No. 666/2025) is
pending in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Akaltara,
seeking declaration of the sale deed as null and void and
permanent injunction. He further submits that the bail
application has been rejected by the trial Court on the ground
that there is a bar under Section 18-A(2) of the SC/ST Act.
However, the case under the Atrocities Act is not prima facie
made out as there is no averment regarding the caste in the FIR
as well as in the statement and therefore, anticipatory bail
should be granted to the appellant. He placed reliance on the
decision of Hon’ble Patna High Court in the matter of Sudama
4
Mahto vs. The State of Bihar, passed in Criminal Appeal
(SJ) 482 of 2021 on 10.03.2022 and in the matter of Bheema
vs. State of Karnataka, passed in Criminal Appeal No.
200239 of 2021 on 20.12.2021.
4. Learned State counsel opposes the anticipatory bail, submitting
that the complainant is the rightful owner and possessor of 2.16
acres of agricultural land in Gram Kirari, Janjgir Champa,
having purchased it through registered sale deeds dated
10.05.2012, and 23.05.2012, from the late Vinay Dhar Diwan
(husband of applicant No. 1 and father of applicant No. 2). The
applicants have allegedly harassed and insulted the
complainant, using their influence to forcibly restrain him from
using his land since 2018, including demolishing boundary
walls, therefore, they are not entitled for grant of anticipatory
bail considering grievousness of the offence and the bar under
Section 18 of the Atrocities Act. Hence, the appeal is liable to be
dismissed.
5. Learned counsel for the objector vehemently opposes the grant
of anticipatory bail to the appellants, submitting that the civil
suit was filed subsequent to the registration of the FIR. It is
alleged that the appellants used caste-based abuses and
demolished the construction on the complainant’s land. Given
the gravity of the offense, it is prayed that the appellants may
not be granted anticipatory bail.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case
diary.
5
7. Upon examination of the material on record and the impugned
order, it is evident that a named FIR has been registered against
the applicants, which specifically mentions caste-based
allegations. Consequently, the trial court’s rejection of the
anticipatory bail application on this ground is deemed proper.
Considering the entirety of the case’s facts and circumstances,
particularly the nature and gravity of the offence, as well as the
material collected and available on record against the
applicants, this Court finds no illegality in the trial court’s
order. The cited case laws do not support the grant of
anticipatory bail in this instance. Therefore, this Court upholds
the trial court’s decision to reject the anticipatory bail
application.
8. Accordingly, the present appeal for grant of anticipatory bail
stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
Sourabh P.
[ad_1]
Source link