Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 387 (CHH)

KUDRAT KHAN v. STATE OF C. G.

2006-08-02

S.K.SINHA

body2006
ORDER 1. Heard. 2. This is an application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants, who are apprechending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 132/2006, registered at Police Station-Dabra, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 452,294,323, 506-B, 147,427,149 of the IPC and Section 3(1) (iii) (x) (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act.). 3. The brief facts are that firstly, on the basis of same First Information Report, these applicants were arrested by the concerned Police on 21/5/2006 under various Sections of IPC and were released on regular bail under Section 437 of Cr.P.C. on 22/5/2006 form the Court of JMFC, Sakti. Thereafter, two consequent dates for filing the charge sheet were taken by the Police and on the subsequent date, an offence under Section 3(1) (iii) (x) (xi) of the said Act was added and in this situation, this application has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that earlier also, when the same material was with the Police and the Court of JMFC, this offence was not added. He further submits that this offence has been subsequently added. He prays for releasing the applicants on anticipatory bail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application. He raises the ground that in view of the provisions of Section 18 of the said Act, no application for anticipatory bail would lie. 6. The law in relation to entertaining the application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in such offences is well settled. The point raised by the State and learned counsel for the applicant is no longer res integra. It has been held that if the contents of the ELR. or the complaint disclose the commission of offence wider the Special Act, the Courts would not be justified in entering into a further enquiry by Summoning the case diary or any other material as to whether the allegations are true or false or whether there is any preponderance of probability for commission of such an offence. At this stage, the Court cannot examine and scrutinize the record of the case in order to ascertain the veracity of the F.I.R./complaint. At this stage, the Court cannot examine and scrutinize the record of the case in order to ascertain the veracity of the F.I.R./complaint. The provisions of Section 18 of the Act, 1989 put a complete bar against the entertainment of an application for anticipatory bail where prima facie the contents of the F.I.R. disclose the ingredients of the commission of the offence under the Act of 1989 which is apparent from the perusal of the section itself and thus the Court at the most would be required to evaluate the F.I.R. itself with a view to find out if the facts emerging there from taken at their face value disclose the existence of the ingredients constituting the alleged offence, then the Court would not be justified in entering into an enquiry as to the reliability or a genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R. or the complaint. (Please see Satya Prakash Vs. State of C.G.). 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, particularly considering the contents of the FIR, I am of the opinion that present is a fit case in which the benefit of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal procedure should be extended to the applicants. Their application filed under Section 438 for the Code of Criminal Procedure is allowed. 8. It is directed that in the event of arrest, these applicants shall be released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond in sum of Rs.5,000/- with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer arresting them. 9. This order shall remain in force for a period of 60 days from today, during which, the applicants may apply for regular bail before the concerned Court. Anticipatory Bail Granted.