1 2025:CGHC:12390 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Order Reserved on 18.02.2025 Order delivered on 12.03.2025 CRA No. 2104 of 2024 Akhilesh Yadav S/o Harihar Singh Yadav Aged About 35 Years R/o Parsabhata Balco Nagar Korba District - Korba - Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Office Azak Korba District - Korba Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate. For Respondent-State: Mr. Karan Kumar Bharani, Panel lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma CAV Order 1. This appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for short, 'Act of 1989') is filed against impugned rejection order dated 28.10.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribe whereby appellants' application filed under Section 483 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail is rejected. 2. Appellant is alleged to be an accused in connection with Crime No.431/2024 registered at Police Station – Azak, Korba, Chhattisgarh, for the offence punishable under Sections 69,351(2) of BNS, 2023 and Section 3(2)(va), 3(2)(v) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities Actt, 1989). 3. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that the complaint made by the complainant against the present appellant and as per the case of the 2 prosecution the complainant has solemnized his love marriage with the appellant in the year 2014 and thereafter both were residing together at Bhadrapara, Balco tilll 2022. In the year 2022, the appellant went to his native place and got married with another girl of his community and after coming to know about the second marriage, he refused to live with her as she belongs to lower caste and also asked her to abort the child otherwise, he would kill her and also abused her in the name of her caste. On the basis of the complaint made by the complainant the police initially registered the complaint case under Section 351(2) of BNS, 2023 and Section 3(2)(v)(a) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as Crime No. 431 of 2024. The appellant filed a bail application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail before the Learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 which got rejected on the ground of not maintainable because Section 18 of SC and ST Act, 1989 creates bar for grant of anticipatory bail. During the course of investigation police added Section 69 of BNS and Section 3(2) (v) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 4. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the finding recorded by Learned Special Court that anticipatory bail is not maintainable is perverse as in view of the judgment passed by the Hon”ble Supreme Court in the matter of Prithviraj Chauhan Vs. Union of India, reported in (2020) 4 SCC 727 in which it is held that the “application of the provisions of the SC/ST act shall only apply after the prima facie satisfaction that an offence under the SC/ST Act has occurred, and consequently the absolute bar imposed on grant of anticipatory bail by virtue of Sections 18 and Section 18A would not apply in case the complainant fails to make a prima facie case for applicability of the 3 provisions of the SC/ST Act. “ 5. He also relied upon the judgment passed by this court in the matter of Pankaj Singh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh vide order dated 06.05.2022 passed by Hon’ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari were it is held as under:- Even in the Atrocities Act, the Court has a duty to strike a balance and check the possibility of false accusations, if a person is able to show that, prima facie, he has not committed any atrocity against a member of SC and ST and that the allegation was malafide and prima facie false and that prima facie no case was made out, the bar under Section 18 of the Act is not attracted. In this regard, in the matter of Subhash Kashinath Mahajan Vs. State of Maharashtra, the following has been observed: 50. we have no quarrel with the proposition laid down in the said judgment that persons committing offences under the Attrocities act ought not to be granted anticipatory bail in the same manner in which the anticipatory bail is granted in other cases punishable with similar sentence. Still, the question remains whether in cases where there is no prima facie case under the Act, bar under Section 18 operates can be considered. We are unable to read the said judgment as laying down that exclusion is applicable to such situations. If a person is able to show that, prima facie, he has not committed any atrocity against a member of SC and ST and that the allegation was mala fide and prima facie false and that prima faciie no case was made out, we do not see consideration in the mind of this Court in Balothia is that the perpetrators of atrocities should not be granted anticipatory bail so that they may not terrorize the victims. Consistent with this view, it can certainly be said that innocent persons against whom there was no prima facie case or patently false case cannot be subjected to the same treatment as the persons who are prima facie perpetrators of the crime. 53. It is well settled that a statute is to be read in the context of 4 the background and its object. Instead of literal interpretation the court may, in the present context, prefer purposive interpretation to achieve the object of law. Doctrine of proportionality is well known procedural penal provision affecting liberty of citizen must be read consistent with the concept of fairness and reasonableness.” 6. He submits that the written complaint and the FIR also does not disclose prima facie offence against the appellant that appellant has criminally intimated to the complainant to cause injury, reputation or threat to the complainant. Hence the Special Judge has committed grave illegality in dismissing the bail application only on the ground that Section 18 creates a bar for applying that application under Section 438 of CrPc and not considered the bail application filed by the Appellant on its merits. Hence he prays for release of appellant on anticipatory bail in the interest of justice. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellant. Objection/reply on behalf of the answering respondent has been filed. 8. Heard counsel for respective parties, perused the record with utmost circumspection. 9. Supreme Court in the matter of Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs. Union of India AIR 2020 Supreme Court 1036 held that bar created by Sub section 18 and Section 18A against grant of anticipatory bail in case of atrocity against SC and ST shall not apply unless prima facie is made out- However in case of misuse of provisions Court can quash the cases to prevent misuse on settled parameters. 10. In the instant case it is an indisputable fact the complaint and the accused appellant solemnized their love marriage in a temple in the year 2014. It also clarifies that the accused appellant was well aware of the 5 caste of the victim. And moreover they have been married in the year 2014 and were together till 2022, it is apparent that in those 08 years of marriage the use of filthy language relating to the caste of the complainant has never come up. Moreover the complainant has stated that in the year 2022 the accused appellant went back to his home town Uttar Pradesh where he secretly got married to some other girl of his caste only. When she found this, upon which the accused appellant stated that he feels ashamed upon marrying her of low caste in the society, therefore he can’t live with her. Even he asked her to abort the child otherwise he would kill her. However in the considered opinion of this this Court the allegation leveled against the accused appellant that he used languages which were directly related to the caste of the victim prima facie shows that it is not a bonafide intention of the complainant rather it shows that a malafide intention as the applicant got married again to some other girl of his caste only. Out of anger the complainant has made a complaint of the accused appellant. 11. Considering entire facts and circumstances of case, nature of allegations, statements of prosecutrix, submission of counsel for appellant, there is no any other previous criminal antecedent against the appellant and the detention period of appellant I am inclined to allow this appeal. 12. Accordingly, appeal is allowed. Impugned rejection order 28.10.2024 passed by Special Judge, Korba (Annexure A-1) is set aside. Therefore, the bar of Section 18(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act) would not be applicable in this case .It is directed that in the event of arrest by the Police Officer appellant shall be released on bail upon his furnishing a bail bond in sum of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties in the like sum to the 6 satisfaction of the Arresting officer on the following conditions that:- a) Appellant shall appear before trial Court regularly on each and every date, unless exempted from appearance. b) Appellant shall not, in any manner, tamper with the prosecution witnesses. c) Appellant shall in any manner will not threaten the complainant of the case. d) Appellant will give his full co-operation whenever the Police Officer will ask him to come for inquiry. e) Appellant in any manner will take full participation in resolving the case and will not ask for unnecessary adjournment. sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge alfiza