NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 44 of 2022

1. Sunil Rishi S/o Mulkraj Rishi Aged About 59 Years

2. Karan Rishi S/o Sunil Rishi Aged About 32 Years Both are R/o Mangla Chowk, Bypass Road Bilaspur, Police Station Civil Lines, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

---- Appellants Versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Civil Lines, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent CRA No. 40 of 2022

1. Sunil Rishi S/o Mulkraj Rishi Aged About 59 Years

2. Karan Rishi S/o Sunil Rishi Aged About 32 Years Both are R/o Mangla Chowk, Bypass Road Bilaspur, Police Station-Civil Lines, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Appellants Versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station-Civil Lines, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent For Appellants :- Ms. Fouzia Mirza, Senior Advocate with Mr. Navin Shukla , Advocate For Respondent-State :- Mr. Sameer Oraon, G.A.

For Objector :- Mr. Vijay K. Sahu, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwar i Judgment On Board

21.2.2022

1. Since in both the appeals appellants are one and the same, they are being heard and decided by this common order.

2. The appellants have preferred these appeals for grant of anticipatory bail, as they apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime Nos. 1384/2021 and 1385/2021 respectively registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District – Bilaspur C.G. for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 427, 506/34 of the I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(v), 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

3. These appeals have been preferred under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the order passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Bilaspur C.G. dated 24.12.2021.

4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that appellants have hurled obscene abuses and threatened to kill the complainant with an intention of insulting and intimidating in the name of caste and also damaged their boundary wall.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there was a boundary dispute for which WPC No.30/2022 has already been filed and the matter has been settled vide order dated 06.1.2022 by directing for demarcation. The above case was purely of civil nature and a fresh demarcation has been ordered. The dispute, was not due to the complainant belonging to be of a particular community, so the bar of the anticipatory bail does not attract in a particular case. Learned counsel further submits that anti atrocities law was initially enacted with the laudable purpose of protecting persons hailing from that particular community of any abuse or harassment of caste supremacy. Learned counsel for the appellants referring to the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand, [(2020) 10 SCC 710] and Ramawatar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, [(2021) SCC Online SC 966], prays for grant of anticipatory bail.

6. Learned counsel for the objector opposes the bail applications.

Counsel for the objector submits that the complainant had purchased the land adjoining to the applicant's land and started construction on the said land after all necessary clearance required from the concerned Municipal Corporation. On 05.12.2021, appellants came in the construction land and threatened the complainant by saying that how you can build your house near ours and abused him in the name of caste and started an argument. The land of the complainant has already been demarked since 2019 and a copy of demarcation report has already been annexed. Learned counsel further submits that insult in the name of caste is social evil and have grievous effect, therefore, appellants are not entitled to be granted anticipatory bail.

7. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the bail application.

Learned counsel for the State strongly relied upon the fact that the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tri