Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 40 (CHH)

Praveen Kumar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

2007-01-11

S.K.SINHA

body2007
ORDER Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. 1. This is an application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 21/2006, registered at Police Station Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, District Rajnandgaon (C,0.) for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Special Act). 2. The case of the persecution is that en 15-12-2006, the prosecutrix lodged a report in the concerned Police Station that since 4 years to the said date, she was subjected to sexual intercourse by this applicant. It also comes in the First Information Report that she was taken by this applicant to Nagpur and they were residing as husband and wife since last 4 years, but ultimately, when she offered for a regular marriage, this applicant refused to marry her. 3. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that admittedly, according to the prosecution itself, the girl was aged about 21 years on the date of FIR, as in her transfer certificate, seized by the Police, her date of birth is mentioned as 30-6-1985. He also submits that even 4 years prior to the date of lodging of the F.I.R. calculation is made; she would be aged about 17 years. He further submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case neither an offence under Section 376, I.P.C. would be made out nor an offence under the aforesaid sections of the Special Act would also be made out, therefore, this application filed under Section 438, Cr.P.C. would be maintainable. 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State opposes like ball application. He submits that since an offence under Section 3(l)(xii) of the Special Act is registered against the applicant, this application under Section 438, Cr.P.C. would not be maintainable in view of the bar Under Section 18 of the Special Act. 5. 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 appellant is no longer res integra. 5. 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 appellant is no longer res integra. It has been held that if the contents of the FIR or the complaint disclose the commission of offence under 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 scrutinise the record of the case in order to ascertain the veracity of the FIR/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 FIR disclose the ingredients of the commission of the offence under the Act of 1989 which is apparent from the perusal of the section itself find thus the Court it the most would be required to evaluate the FIR itself with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom 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 FIR or the complaint. 6. On many occasions, it has been noticed by this Court that in the matter of commission of alleged offences under the I.P.C., the prosecution agencies are straightway utilising the provisions of Special Act only on the ground that the victim of the offence happens to be a member of a Scheduled Castes or a Scheduled Tribes. The factor, which would govern the application of the provisions of Special Act, would not be only the caste of the victim, but the essentials are that firstly the Ingredients of the offence alleged, are inherently attracted and secondly, that the victim belongs to a particular caste or tribe. 7. In case on hand, the offence registered is under Section 3(l)(xii) of the Special Act. 7. In case on hand, the offence registered is under Section 3(l)(xii) of the Special Act. Section 3(1)(xii) says that whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Castes or a Scheduled Tribes, being in a position to dominate the will of a woman belonging to a Scheduled Castes or a Scheduled Tribes and uses that position to exploit her sexually to which she would not have otherwise agreed, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine. 8. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions would show that the first condition for attracting the aforesaid offence would be that the accused must be in a position to dominate the will of a woman who belongs to a particular caste or tribe and he uses such position to exploit the victim sexually to which she would not have otherwise agreed, i.e. to say that if a person is not in a dominating position and the facts of the case show that there was some element of free consent from the side of the victim and a prima facie possibility of which is not fully ruled out, the provisions of Section 3(1)(xii) would not attracted only on the ground that in such case, the victim happens to be a member of Scheduled Castes or a Scheduled Tribes, by chance. 9. If we peruse the contents of the FIR of the case, it would appear that according to the victim, she lived with the applicant and they went to Nagpur from Rajnandgaon and she was residing with the applicant as his wife since a reasonably long period i.e. for more than 4 years and the dispute arose when the applicant denied to marry her I am of the opinion that in such circumstance, present is a fit case, in which, prima facie ingredients of the offence alleged, are not attracted according to the FIR and the provisions of Section 18 of the Act would also not be attracted, therefore, the application under Section 438, Cr. P.C., would be maintainable. 10. As far as the merits of the case are concerned, in the facts and circumstances of the case, referred to above, I am inclined to admit the application to bail. 11. His application filed under Section 438, Cr. P.C. is allowed. 12. P.C., would be maintainable. 10. As far as the merits of the case are concerned, in the facts and circumstances of the case, referred to above, I am inclined to admit the application to bail. 11. His application filed under Section 438, Cr. P.C. is allowed. 12. It is directed that in the event of arrest of this applicant, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in like amount to the satisfaction of the officer arresting him. 13. This order of anticipatory bail shall remain in force for a period of 60 days from today, during which, the applicant may apply for regular bail before the concerned Court.