Chattisgarh High Court
Mo. Rashid vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 September, 2022
Page 1 of 4\
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 859 of 2022
1. Mo. Rashid S/o Mo. Noor, Aged About 55 Years R/o Jhumarpara, Police
Station Bishrampur, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
2. Jamhir Khan S/o Sultan Khan, Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Rai,
Police Station Bishrampur, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
---- Appellants
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Of Police
Station Ajak Surajpur, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
For Appellants : Shri Anil Gulati, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Kashif Shakeel, Dy. Advocate General
The prosecutrix appears before this Court on 28.07.2022 and has raised no objection regarding grant of bail to the Appellants.
Hon'ble Justice Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal Order on Board 06.09.2022
1. This appeal has been preferred by the Accused/Appellants under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1989') questioning the legality and propriety of the order dated 18.05.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge(Atrocities), Surajpur, District Surajpur(CG) in Special Case No.87/2020 (Crime No.5/2020), whereby, the application filed by the Appellants under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(hereinafter referred to as 'the Cr.P.C.') has been rejected.
2. Case of the prosecution is that one Abdul Azad Khan @ Chhotu was Page 2 of 4\ charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 313, 506 of the I.P.C., under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and also under Section 3(2) of the Act of 1989 in connection with Special Case No. 87/2020 (Crime No.5/2020) " State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Abdul Azad Khan @ Chhotu". According to the prosecution, when the prosecutrix in the said matter appeared before the concerned Court on 24.03.2021 for the purposes of recording her evidence, at the relevant time, the Appellants who are father-in-law and father of the Accused, respectively, threatened the said prosecutrix that if he (Abdul Azad Khan @ Chhotu) has not been released on bail, then in the said event, the entire of her family would be eliminated and as a consequence upon it, pressurized her for withdrawal of the said matter and/or for change of her version. It is, thus, alleged that the Appellants, in order to get an undue advantage, have tried to interfere the Court functioning and, in view thereof, they have been prosecuted by the concerned police with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 195-A, 506 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(r) of the Act of 1989, while arresting them on 17.05.2022.
3. The Appellants have moved an application for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. but, the said application has been rejected by the concerned Court below vide order impugned dated 18.05.2022 by observing, inter alia, that the manner in which, the Appellants have interfered with the Court proceedings appears to be serious in nature, as such, the Appellants are not entitled to be enlarged on bail and accordingly, the bail application filed by them has been rejected and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellants would submit that the Appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in connection Page 3 of 4\ with the said crime. While inviting attention towards the statement of one Priti Jaiswal examined during enquiry submits that the statement of her is deviated from the prosecutrix and, therefore, it is evident that the Appellants have been falsely implicated in the said crime. Further contention of him is that since the charge sheet in the said matter has already been filed, therefore, the Appellants, who are in jail since 17.05.2022 be enlarged on bail.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent/State submits that when the prosecutrix came to the Court in the said matter being Special Case No.87/2020(Crime No.5/2020) for her examination, at that juncture, the Appellants have threatened the prosecutrix for withdrawal of her case and/or for change of her version. It is contended further that based upon the alleged incident so happened in the Court, the learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Surajpur has directed the concerned Station House Office, Surajpur to hold an enquiry in this regard vide its letter dated 24.03.2021. In pursuance thereof, an enquiry was conducted wherein the prosecutrix has stated very specifically that when she appeared in the Court for recording of her statement, at that particular time, she was threatened by the Appellants for withdrawal and change of her version in the said matter. It is contended further that after examining the said report, the concerned Court has directed the said Station House Officer to initiate the proceedings, if anything wrong has been done by the Appellants and, after investigating the matter, the concerned S.H.O. has submitted his final report before the concerned Court, while registering the offence against the Appellants under Sections 195-A, 506 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(r) of the Act of 1989. Learned counsel for the Respondent, therefore, submits that the Appellants are not entitled to be enlarged on bail as they have interfered with the Court proceedings.
Page 4 of 4\
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire case diary carefully.
7. After considering the aforesaid contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and considering the statements as recorded in pursuance of the instructions issued by the concerned Court below and considering further that since the charge sheet has already been filed and that by considering the detention period of the Appellants, who are in jail for more than 3 months, without commenting anything on merits of the case, I am inclined to enlarge them on bail.
8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the order impugned dated 18.05.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Surajpur is hereby set-aside. It is directed that in the event of each of the Appellants executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court, they shall be released on bail, 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 from disclosing such fact to the Court;
(ii) they shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and
(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 not involve themselves in any offence of similar nature in future.
Sd/-
(Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge sunita