ORDER :

Since both the appeals are arising out of same crime number therefore they are heard together and are being disposed by this common order.

The appellants are in jail since 26.09.2022 in connection with Crime No.71/2022 registered at Police Station - Kukdur, District – Kabirdham (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 306, 34 of IPC and Section 3 (2) (V) of the Scheduled Casts and the Scheduled Tribes, Prevention of Atrocities Act, (hereinafter referred to as Special Act).

1. These appeals arise out of impugned order dated 13/10/2022 passed in Special Case No. 418/2022 by which, learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Kabirdham (CG) has rejected application for grant of regular bail filed by the appellants.

2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 26.09.2022 in respect to an incident occurred on 10.09.2022, the FIR has been lodged against two accused persons namely Praveen Singh Parihar and Anil Kurre. The allegations against the accused persons are that they have committed an offence under Section 306 of IPC. It has been alleged that the present appellants have abetted and instigated the deceased Budhram Baiga who committed suicide. It has been alleged that the accused Praveen Singh Parihar Deputy Registrar, Forest Division Kawardha caught the deceased red handed while cutting the Teak wood Tree at Kamtakhol Forest and instead of taking any legal action, they were demanding Rs.50,000/- from deceased.

3. Learned counsels for the appellants argued that according to the allegation of the prosecution, the deceased was found involved in cutting of the Teak wood tree and the appellants have demanded Rs.50,000/- or else deceased would be implicated in the said crime. They further submit that ingredients of section 107 of the IPC are totally missing in this case, therefore instigation or harassment on the part of the appellants under Section 306 of IPC is not made out. They further submit that investigation is complete and charge-sheet has already been filed.

4. Mr. K.R. Nair, learned counsel for the appellant Praveen Singh Parihar submits that in order to attract provisions of Section 3 (2) (v) of Special Act, the prosecution must establish on record that the accused was knowing the victim. In the case in hand the appellant Praveen Singh Parihar met the deceased for the first time, therefore, it can not be said that the deceased was known to appellant. In CRA 1687 of 2022, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant belongs to Scheduled Cast and therefore the provision of Special Act could not be attracted against him in order to substantiate the offence.

5. Shri Manoj Paranjpe submits that the alleged incident took place on 10.09.2022 and FIR was lodged on 26.09.2022 there is a delay of about 15-16 days in lodging the FIR. In order to substantiate their submissions, they relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. State of Maharashta reported in (2021) SCC 427, Gurucharan Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2017) 1 SCC 433. On the question of delay Shri Manoj Paranjpe relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court Sumedh Singh Saini Vs. State of Punjab (2020) SCC SC 1986.

6. On the other hand, learned State counsel heavily opposes the submissions of counsel for the appellants and submits that the name of the deceased was Budhram Baiga and the allegation is that he was found cutting Teak wood Tree and therefore the present appellants were harassing and threatening him to implicate him in the crime unless he pays Rs.50,000/-. This fact has been corroborated from statement of the wife, son and daughter of the deceased and two independent witnesses namely Gian Lal Baiga and Sukhbai Baiga, who have categorically stated that the deceased was under pressure because of the instigation by the appellants, therefore the deceased committed suicide. However, he fairly submits that from perusal of the charge-sheet it does not appear that appellant Pr