1 2025:CGHC:44391 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1602 of 2023 Pragya Sahu W/o. Tulsi Sahu, Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Parsada Joshi, Police Station Rajim, Tahsil Rajim, District Gariyaband, C.G. ... Applicant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Rajim, District Gariyaband, C.G. 2 - Benraj Soni, S/o Munshi Soni, Aged About 48 Years R/o. Village Parsada Joshi, Tehsil Rajim, Police Station Rajim, District Gariyaband, C.G. ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Anshul Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Saumya Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 01/09/2025 1. The appellant has preferred this Criminal Appeal under Section 14- A(1) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2005 for setting aside of order dated 21.06.2023 passed by the Special Judge Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocity), Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case under ST/SC Act No. 9/2018, on the basis of charge-sheet dated 12.04.2018 and Crime No. 122/2017, registered at Police Station RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Rajim, District Gariyaband (C.G.) for the offences under Sections 294, 506, 323, 147 of the IPC and Section 3(i)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 23.06.2017 complainant Benraj Soni lodged an FIR at Police Station Rajim, District Gariyaband, alleging that during a village meeting the appellant Pragya Sahu (then Sarpanch) and her husband Tulsiram Sahu (then Upsarpanch) along with other co-accused abused him by taking the name of his caste, and Tulsiram Sahu slapped him. On this basis, Crime No.122/2017 was registered against six persons under Sections 294, 506, 323, 147 of IPC and Section 3(i) (x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Initially, the appellant apprehending arrest had preferred MCRCA No.888/2017 which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 30.11.2017. 3. Upon completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet only against five persons namely Tulsiram Sahu, Pilaram Sahu, Doman Lal Sahu, Krishna Sahu and Pardeshi Ram Sahu, while categorically recording that the presence of the appellant Pragya Sahu was not found at the place of incident, therefore no charge- sheet was filed against her. During trial, however, based on the statements of PW-1 Benraj Soni and PW-2 Ramsharan Yadav, an application under Section 319 CrPC was moved. The learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 21.06.2023 allowed the application and directed addition of the appellant as an accused, issuing arrest warrant against her. Hence, this appeal. 3 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there are six accused persons involved in the present case including the appellant herein. During the course of investigation, charge-sheet was filed only against five accused persons, and so far as the appellant is concerned, the police, on the basis of certain videography, came to the conclusion that the appellant was not found present at the place of occurrence. It is further submitted that during the trial, when the complainant’s statement was recorded, he made allegations against the appellant only on account of the fact that her husband had lodged an FIR against him, and therefore, with mala fide intention, the appellant’s name has been falsely implicated. 5. He further submits that the appellant had already been enlarged on anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 30.11.2017 in MCRCA No. 888/2017. However, vide impugned order dated 21.06.2023, the trial Court, while exercising powers under Section 319 of the CrPC, summoned the appellant and straightaway issued a non-bailable warrant. It is submitted that the said order is bad in law as it is contrary to the settled principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92, wherein it has been held that the power under Section 319 CrPC is an extraordinary power to be exercised sparingly and only on the basis of strong and cogent evidence. Reliance has also been placed on Labhuji Amratji Thakor v. State of Gujarat, 2019 AIR (SC) 734, where it has been reiterated that the test to be applied under Section 319 of CrPC is “more than 4 prima facie” but short of conviction, and the Court must record reasons before summoning an additional accused. Similarly, in Mani Pushpak Joshi v. State of Uttarakhand (2019) 9 SCC 805, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the power under Section 319 of CrPC cannot be exercised in a mechanical manner and requires due satisfaction from the evidence already on record. 6. It is further submitted that though notice was served to the complainant, the same has not been received back after service. However, considering the fact that the appellant has already been granted anticipatory bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, and in light of the settled legal position, the issuance of a non-bailable warrant against the appellant on the very first date of summoning is wholly unsustainable and deserves to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel supported the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court, in which no interference is called for. 8. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties, and perused documents taken on record. 9. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that once the appellant had already been granted the protection of anticipatory bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.11.2017 passed in MCRCA No. 888/2017, the issuance of a non-bailable warrant by the trial Court on the very first date of summoning under Section 319 of CrPC was not justified. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab 5 (2014) 3 SCC 92 has categorically held that the power under Section 319 of CrPC is an extraordinary and discretionary power which is to be exercised sparingly and only where strong and cogent evidence is available, and not in a casual or cavalier manner. Similarly, in Labhuji Amratji Thakor v. State of Gujarat 2019 AIR (SC) 734, it has been reiterated that such power requires a higher degree of satisfaction than mere prima facie evidence, and the Court must record specific reasons before invoking the said jurisdiction. In the present case, the trial Court has issued a non- bailable warrant against the appellant without assigning any cogent reasons, ignoring the fact that she was already under the protection of an order of this Court granting anticipatory bail to her. Therefore, the issuance of warrant is contrary to the settled principles of law and cannot be sustained. 10. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 21.06.2023 is set aside to the extent of issuance of non-bailable warrant against the appellant. However, it is made clear that the appellant shall appear before the trial Court and co-operate with the proceedings, and the trial Court shall proceed in accordance with law. 11. Accordingly, the present appeal stands partly allowed. 12. Let a copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan