Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 140 (MP)

Shyama Singh v. State of M. P.

2005-01-27

U.C.MAHESHWARI

body2005
ORDER 1. This application is preferred u/s 438 CrPC under the apprehension of the arrest of the applicants in the offence u/s. 406, 294, 506-B read with section 34 of IPC and u/s 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the "SC and ST Act") vide Crime No. 152/05 registered at P.S. Cheechali, District Narsinghpur M.P. . 2. It is said that complainant Teekaram Chamar had taken the land of the applicants and their other family members at "Advatai" and after taking such land he cultivated the same for the crops of Rahar, Wheat and Sugar Cane, etc. but the same was taken by the applicants and their family members and it was not divided with the complainant according to their agreement. Subsequently it was demanded by the complainant then as alleged he was abused with the name of his caste then a report in writing was given to the authority by complainant, on which, the offence was registered and the matter is under investigation in the aforesaid sections. 3. Counsel for the applicants submits that this is not a case in which the complainant was abused with intention to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe at the place within public view. He further submits that if some agreement is taken place in between applicants alongwith their family members and the complainant regarding some crops and the same was broken by other of the members then such act is not covered by breach of trust or fraud or by the aforesaid SC and ST Act. Because it is a case of breach of contract and will give a civil action to the complainant. He further submits that at the initial stage when the agreement took place there was no dishonest intention in between the parties and as per dictum of the apex Court in the matter of Hari Prasad Chamaria v. Bishun Kumar Surekha and others reported in AIR 1974 SC 301 , no offence is made out against the applicants. He further submits that at the initial stage when the agreement took place there was no dishonest intention in between the parties and as per dictum of the apex Court in the matter of Hari Prasad Chamaria v. Bishun Kumar Surekha and others reported in AIR 1974 SC 301 , no offence is made out against the applicants. So far offence of SC and ST Act is concerned he has submitted that only taking the name of the caste of any person without any intention to humiliate him on the basis of his caste does not give any right to the authority for invoking the provisions of said SC and ST Act. Thus, in such circumstances the bar created under section 18 of the said Act is not attracted to this case. In such circumstances, the alleged offence remains only for u/s 294, 506B R/w section 34 of IPC which all are bailable sections. He further submits that if anything was happened on account of land of the applicants and their family members then no presumption could be drawn against them for committing the alleged offences. Thus, the applicants have been falsely implicated in the case while they have not committed any offence. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent/State has submitted that although the matter is related to the land of the applicants and their family but in the facts and circumstances when the authority has invoked the provisions of SC and ST Act then no anticipatory bail could be granted to the applicants even otherwise in the facts and circumstances applicants do not deserve to be extended the benefit of anticipatory bail. 5. Having heard the learned counsel and after perusing the case diary 1 am of the considered view that in the present circumstances the provision of said SC and ST Act are not applicable to the case because incident had not taken place because of the complainant belonging to the Scheduled Caste community "Chamar" but due to some breach of contract, some report was given in writing and on that basis the offence was registered. Besides this, taking the name of caste of any citizen of this country itself is not an offence till it is not taken with the intention to humiliate that person because of his community. Such things are lacking in the instant case. Besides this, taking the name of caste of any citizen of this country itself is not an offence till it is not taken with the intention to humiliate that person because of his community. Such things are lacking in the instant case. Thus, bar created by section 18 of the SC and ST Act does not attract in the case at hand. My aforesaid view is fully supported by a decided case of this Court in the matter of Raj Kumar Jain v. State of M. P. reported in 2000 (2) MPHT 35 (NOC) in which it is held as under: "2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that merely by using the word chamar the provision of the Act is not at all applicable. The origin of incident lies somewhere else. He also placed reliance on the decision of this Court reported in 1995 (2) MPWN Note No. 70 Raghuveer Prasad v. State of M.P. Thus, the bar of applicability of section 438 CrPC is not attracted. There is force in the submissions of the applicant's counsel. Other sections for which the offence is registered are 294 and 506 B IPC. Section 294 is bailable and only section 506 B is non-bailable. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the allegation of non-disbursement of the scholarship against the complainant due to which the incident has taken place, the application is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail in the event of his arrest on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 15,000/- with one solvent surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. This order is limited only for a period of six weeks and within that period applicant may surrender and apply for regular bail before the competent Court." 6. So far breach of contract is concerned, it gives to civil right to the parties. Thus, in view of the aforesaid dictum of this Court and the apex Court and considering the other circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, I deem fit to allow this application. Thus, the application is allowed. 7. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants: (I) Shyam Singh @ Dhannu, and (2) Smt. Damyanti Bai; they be released on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. Thus, the application is allowed. 7. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants: (I) Shyam Singh @ Dhannu, and (2) Smt. Damyanti Bai; they be released on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- each alongwith one surety of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the arresting authority. This order shall remain in force for a period of 60 days during this period, the applicants, if so desire, may move an application for regular bail before the competent Court which shall be decided by that Court in accordance with law. The applicants shall abide by conditions of the provision of 438 (2) CrPC.