Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 359 (CHH)

GOVIND YADAV v. STATE OF C. G.

2011-11-17

MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA

body2011
ORDER As per Hon'ble Shri Mahindra Mohan Shrivastava, J.:- 1. Heard. 2. The applicants have has preferred this application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 78/11, registered in Police Station - Anushuchit Jati & Anushuchit Janjati Kalyan Thana, Janjgir, District - Jangjir Champa, for alleged commission of offence under Sections 294, 506, 323 & 452 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short "the Act of 1989"). 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that in the matter of dispute with regard to preparation of rashan card, on 7.9.2011, the complainant was abused and threatened using caste language and he was asked by the applicants either to act according to their dictates or to get transfer or resign from service. It is further alleged that thereafter, in the intervening night of 10-11 th September, 2011, the applicants entered the house of the complainant and he was assaulted with the help of lathi. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the applicants are being falsely implicated by the complainant, who is an employee of Nagar Panchayat working as Revenue Inspector, wherein applicant No.1 is elected president, applicant No.2 is an employee and applicant No.3 is ex-councillor. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that number of complaints in writing were made against working of the complainant by the residents of area and applicant No. I had ordered an inquiry, because of which, he is being falsely implicated. It is further submitted that the complainant had made a written report to the Superintendent of Police and the matter was inquired into and the report was found to be baseless. Where after, the report has been now lodged in the AJ.K. Police Station, wherein offences have been registered without any basis, on afterthought grounds. It is further submitted that the complainant had made a written report to the Superintendent of Police and the matter was inquired into and the report was found to be baseless. Where after, the report has been now lodged in the AJ.K. Police Station, wherein offences have been registered without any basis, on afterthought grounds. It is also submitted that the allegation is prima facie a case of false implication because after the date and time of incident though a report was lodged in the Police Station-Shivarinarayan on 11.9.2011, the only report made was with regard to missing of mobile and in subsequent report made to the Superintendent of Police in writing which bears date 13.9.2011, the allegation is that three persons with covered faces who were gum/as sent by the applicants entered the house and assaulted and thereafter, in the FIR, which has been lodged on 14.9.2011, an entirely different and contradictory story has been made, stating that the applicants entered the house, which clearly shows false implication. Learned counsel further submits that the background in which the dispute is alleged to have taken place, even if the incident which is alleged to have happened on 7.9.2011 is accepted on its face value, no case of commission of offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989 would be made out and, therefore, bar under Section 18 would not be attracted. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State, opposing the bail application, submits that the FIR and the diary statements and other material which has been collected during investigation show that firstly, on 7.9.2011, the applicants abused the complainant by using caste language, threatening him that if he does not act according to their dictates, he should get himself transferred or he should resign, otherwise, he will face dire consequences and thereafter, in the intervening night of 10-11 th September, 2011, the applicants entered the house of the complainant and assaulted him, in which, he has received injury on his thigh. It is further submitted that in view of the allegation which have been made in the FIR supported by diary statement, prima facie case of commission of offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989 is made out and, therefore, the application for grant of anticipatory bail is not maintainable. 6. It is further submitted that in view of the allegation which have been made in the FIR supported by diary statement, prima facie case of commission of offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989 is made out and, therefore, the application for grant of anticipatory bail is not maintainable. 6. Contents of the FIR and the case diary statements show that the complainant is posted as Revenue Inspector in Nagar Panchayat of which applicant No. I is elected President, applicant No.2 is an employee and applicant No.3 is an ex-councillor. FIR alleges that on account of dispute with regard to the preparation of the list of rashan card, complianant was abused. It has also been stated therein that the complainant was abused on 7.9.2011 in the background of dispute with regard of preparation of rashan card list and he was threatened that he will either act on their dictates or get himself transferred or resign, otherwise, he will face dire consequences. These allegations, even if taken on its face value, only shows that the quarrel which is alleged to have taken place, was in the background of a dispute relating to preparation of rashan card list. It has nowhere been stated that it was an act of intentional insult of the complainant because he belongs to scheduled caste. Prima facie, therefore, case of commission of offence under Section 3( 1 )(x) of the Act of 1989 cannot be said to be made out and the bar under Section 18 would not be attracted and the applicant cannot be denied of protection of anticipatory bail in view of the judgments in the cases of Satya prakash Vs. State of C.G.1 & Abdul Abbas Vs. State of C. G. 2. 7. The documents which have been collected by the applicants under Right to Information Act from the office of Superintendent of Police, Janjgir and placed on record, show that the complainant lodged report on 11.9.2011 in the Police Station - Shivrinarayan, wherein there is no mention of the alleged incident and entering the house of the complainant in the intervening night of 10-11 th September, 2011. The complaint which was made by the complainant to the Superintendent of Police is dated 13.9.2011, in which it has been stated that some gundas with covered faces had entered the house. The complaint which was made by the complainant to the Superintendent of Police is dated 13.9.2011, in which it has been stated that some gundas with covered faces had entered the house. The aforesaid complaint got inquired by the Superintendent of Police in which the report was submitted on 2.1 I .2011, stating that the complainant is giving contradictory statements with regard to involvement of the applicants and the complaint is exaggerated and it was only thereafter that the complainant lodged report in the Police Station - AJ.K., leading to registration of offence against the applicants. Therefore, the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled-out and therefore, I am inclined to allow the application for grant of anticipatory bail. 8. Accordingly, the application is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants in connection with the aforesaid offence, they shall be released on bail by the arresting officer on each of them furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- with two sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer with following further conditions that: (i) the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) the applicants 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 facts to the Court or to any police officer. 9. The bail granted to the applicants shall be liable to be cancelled if there is any allegation that after grant of bail, the applicants have, in any manner, committed any kind of criminal act against the complainant. Application Allowed.