Order On Board

22/01/2024

1. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (henceforth 'the Act of 1989') has been preferred against the order dated 03.11.2023 by which learned Special Judge, (Atrocities), Baloda Bazar, District Balodabazar Bhatapara (CG) rejected application of appellants for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.01/2023 registered at Police Station AJAK, BalodaBazar for commission of offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3 (2) (v) of the Act of 1989.

2. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that appellants belong to the family Sukhdev Lal Agrawal. Initially in the year 1989 Competent Authority under the Agricultural Ceiling Act had passed an order that the family members of Sukhdev Lal Agrawal possesses 123 acres of land in excess. In the said proceeding, the family member of Sukhdev Lal Agrawal including the appellants have submitted their option to retain the portion of lands of khasra number earlier recorded in their name and to part the land of khasra numbers to be in excess, measuring 123 acres of land. The appellants have sold the land bearing khasra No.302/48 measuring 0.640 acres to one Milan S/o Hirau Ram and thereby they have committed the offence as alleged. Initially the agreement to sell was executed by appellant No.1 and thereafter sale-deed was executed by appellant No.2.

3. Learned counsel for appellants submits that appellants have not committed any offence as alleged. The Court below rejected application for grant of anticipatory bail only considering the provision under Section 18 of the Act of 1989. He contended that initially the complaint was lodged by the objector, who is also one of the member of the family from different branch, and when no action was taken he filed an application under Section 156 (3) of CrPC before the Special Judge (Atrocities), Baloda Bazar. The learned Special Judge issued direction for registration of FIR against all the proposed accused persons therein, overlooking the fact that no offence under the Act of 1989 would be attracted against the present appellants. He contended that the learned Court below while considering the application under Section 438 of CrPC also failed to take note of the fact that alleged sale-deed is executed by the appellant No.2 in favor of Milan S/o Hirau Ram, who belongs to member of Other Backward Classes, and therefore, the offence under Section 3 (2) (v) of the Act of 1989 registered against the appellants will not be attracted. On merits, he contended that the appellants are aged about 64 years and 59 years respectively, and they have not cheated anyone. Other offences registered against the appellants are under Sections 467, 468, 471 of IPC would also not attract. Hence, the bar under Section 18 of the Act of 1989 will not come in the way to entertain an application for grant of anticipatory bail and it can be considered. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan V. Union of India, reported in (2020) 4 SCC 727.

4. Learned State counsel opposing submissions made by counsel for appellants, submits that FIR under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act of 1989 is registered against all the accused persons. In view of the offences registered against appellants, the Court below has rightly rejected the application filed under Section 438 of CrPC because Section 18 of the Act, 1989 specifically bars for entertaining the application under Section 438 CrPC. However, upon asking learned State counsel does not dispute the submission of counsel for appellants that as per the material available in the case diary, appellants have executed only one sale-deed in favor of the person belonging to OBC category.

5. Complainant in person adopts the arguments made by counsel for State and raised object