1. This appeal under section 14A of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short Special Act) is
arising out of an order dated 28.09.2022 passed by Special Judge (Atrocities), District â€" Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) (for short the “Special Judgeâ€)
in B.P. No. 849/22 by which the learned Special Judge has dismissed the application of the appellants under section 438 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973. Appellants are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 303/2022, registered at Police Station â€" Pamgarh, District
â€" Jamjgir-Champa (C.G.) for an alleged offence punishable under sections 294, 506, 323. 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and section 3(2) (v-a), 3 (1)
(r) (s) of the Special Act.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 23.07.2022 at about 08.00 PM whe the present appellants were having snacks, complainants Rahul and
Dharmendra asked for motor-cycle from them. The present appellants refused to lend them the motorcycle hence heated argument started between
them which led to assault. Hence the said crime was registered against the appellants.
3. Mr. Pallav Mishra learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are innocent and they have not committed the aforesaid crime and
have been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that it is a case of counter FIR. It is also submitted that the appellants have also lodged
FIR against the complainant. From perusal of the FIR registered against the appellants no offence against them under the Special Act is made out. He
submits that there is no whisper in the FIR that the said offence under Special Act has been committed by the appellants. According to the counsel for
the appellants, appellants are young students and if they are sent to Jail, there future would be jeopardized. He further submits that the appellants have
also received injuries in the alleged incident. Apart from the offences registered under the Special Act, rest of the offences are bailable in nature. He
further submits that the appellants are a permanent residents of given address and they are ready and willing to comply with any of the conditions
which may be imposed by this court while granting anticipatory bail. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of
Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs. Union of India reported in (2020) 4 SCC 727, Patan Jamal Vali Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 2021 SCC Online 343, order
dated 13.09.2022 passed by co-ordinate Bench of this court in CRA No. 1056 of 2022 (Rafiq Khan and another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh).
4. Refuting to the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, Ms. Meena Shastri learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the
respondent/State vehemently argued that that on the basis of the statements of witnesses recorded during the course of investigation it is established
that the appellants have committed the alleged crime. She further submits that bar under section 18 of the Special Act would operate and therefore,
the appeal may be dismissed. On 07.11.2022 in camera proceedings the complainant had also objected for grant of anticipatory bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions.
6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan (Supra) held as under:-
“32 As far as the provision of Section 18A and anticipatory bail is con-cerned, the judgment of Mishra, J, has stated that in cases where
no prima facie materials exist warranting arrest in a complaint, the court has the inherent power to direct a pre-arrest bail.
33. I would only add a caveat with the observation and emphasize that while considering any application seeking pre-arrest bail, the High
Court has to balance the two interests: i.e. that the power is not so used as to convert the jurisdiction into that under Section 438 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, but that it is used sparingly and such orders made in very exceptional cases where no prima facie offence is
made out as shown in the FIR, and further also that if such orders are not made in those classes of cases, the result would inevitably be a
miscarriage of justice or abuse of process of law. I consider such stringent terms, otherwise contrary to the philosophy of bail, absolutely
essential, because a liberal use of the power to grant pre-arrest bail would defeat the intention of Parliament.â€
7. In light of the above legal principles and looking to facts circumstances of the case, considering the nature of allegations, perusal of FIR and the
submissions of the respective parties, this court is inclined to allow the appeal of the appellants. Therefore, the impugned order dated 28.09.2022
passed by the learned Special Judge, is hereby set aside. The appeal is allowed and it is directed that in the event of their arrest, the appellants shall be
released on bail on their furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of the like sum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer/arresting
officer on the following conditions:-
(i) They 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/her from disclosing such fact to the Court,
(ii) They shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial,
(iii) They shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial.
(iv) They shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required and will appear before the investigating officer on
30.01.2023 for cooperating in the investigation.
8. It is made clear that the observation made herein above is only for the purpose of decision making of the bail application of the applicants and to
appreciate the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. It will not have any bearing on the merits of the case. The learned trial
court will decide the case on it own merits without being influenced by any observation made herein above. If the applicant violates any of the
conditions stated above, state/complainant would be free to move for cancellation of bail.
9. Certified copy as per rules.
