Citation : 2005 Local Law (CG) 18
In an anticipatory bail matter from Ambikapur, the Chhattisgarh High Court has held that Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 does not bar relief when the FIR, taken at face value, does not disclose the ingredients of an offence under the Act. Justice Sunil Kumar Sinha allowed the application arising out of Crime No. 17 of 2004 registered at Police Station A.J.K., Ambikapur, where the applicant feared arrest for offences under Sections 294 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC, and Sections 3(1)(v) and 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act.
According to the prosecution, the complainant, a member of the Uraon community, objected to construction activity over a 0.026-acre plot (Khasra No. 205/4) near Kharsia Road, Ambikapur. He alleged that the applicant and others abused him with caste-related slurs. The complaint was a typed, written report naming three persons, though it did not mention the applicant by name.
The applicant argued that the FIR lacked the basic elements required to invoke Sections 3(1)(v) and 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act and pointed out that, apart from the special Act, the other alleged offences are bailable. The State opposed the plea, invoking the embargo under Section 18 of the Act against anticipatory bail.
Justice Sinha reiterated the settled position that courts, at the anticipatory bail stage, only examine whether the FIR on its face discloses an offence under the SC/ST Act. If it does, Section 18 bars anticipatory bail; if it does not, the bar does not apply. Relying on precedent including Satya Prakash v. State of C.G. (2004 (1) MPLJ 162), Dule Singh v. State of M.P. (1993 (1) MPLJ 223), and Ramesh Prasad Bhanja v. State of Orissa, the Court emphasized strict construction of “accusation” under Section 18 and the need for a clear allegation that the act was committed on account of the victim’s caste.
On analyzing the FIR, the Court found no prima facie allegations of “wrongful dispossession” for enjoyment over land or “intentional insult” or “intimidation” with the intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. It also noted that the written complaint did not name the applicant and that the allegations were specific to the three persons who were named. The defense version referred to an agreement for sale between the complainant and the applicant’s brother, with part payment acknowledged, suggesting a property dispute rather than a caste-motivated offence.
Holding that the prima facie requirements to attract Sections 3(1)(v) and 3(1)(x) were not met, the Court concluded that Section 18’s bar on anticipatory bail was inapplicable. It therefore allowed the application and directed that, in the event of arrest, the applicant be released on furnishing a personal bond of ₹10,000 with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. The protection will remain in force for two months, within which the applicant may seek regular bail. The Court clarified that its observations are confined to the anticipatory bail stage and will not influence the trial on merits.
Case Details : M. Cr. C. No. 139 of 2005, Abdul Abbas vs. State of Chhattisgarh (13.04.2005)
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Manoj Paranjpe, Adv. For Respondents/Defendant: Arun Sao, Dy.Govt. Adv.
Acts/Rules/Orders:
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 438; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) – Section 294; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) – Section 34; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) – Section 506; Scheduled Castes And The Scheduled Tribes (prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Section 18, Scheduled Castes And The Scheduled Tribes (prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Section 3, Scheduled Castes And The Scheduled Tribes (prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Section 3(1)(v), Scheduled Castes And The Scheduled Tribes (prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Section 3(1)(x)
Cases Referred:
Satya Prakash v. State of C.G., 2004 (1) CGLJ 162; Dule Singh v. State of M.P. through Police Rajgarh, 1993 (1) MPJR 223; Ramesh Prasad Bhanja v. State of Orissa, 1996 Cr LJ 2743
======
आरोपी ने anticipatory bail के लिए आवेदन किया था। उस पर भारतीय दंड संहिता की धारा 302 सहित अन्य आरोप थे। अदालत ने कहा कि एफआईआर में जो बातें दर्ज हैं, उनमें एससी/एसटी अत्याचार निवारण अधिनियम, 1989 के तहत आरोपों के लिए जरूरी मूल तत्व prima facie मौजूद नहीं हैं। इसलिए धारा 18 के तहत anticipatory bail पर प्रतिबंध लागू नहीं होगा।
अदालत ने निर्देश दिया कि गिरफ्तारी की स्थिति में आरोपी को 10,000 रुपये के निजी मुचलके और समान राशि के दो जमानतदारों पर रिहा किया जाए। आरोपी को दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता की धारा 438 के सभी नियमों का पालन करना होगा। यह आदेश दो महीने तक प्रभावी रहेगा, जिसके दौरान आरोपी नियमित जमानत के लिए आवेदन कर सकता है।
