Order On Board

22/01/2024

1. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellants submits that he is not pressing this appeal for appellant No.1. He may be permitted to withdraw the same with liberty to file the application for grant of regular bail before the Court below. He, however, submits that looking to the age of the appellant No.1 direction be issued to learned Court below and to consider and decide the appeal on the same date. He further submits that appellants No. 3 to 6 were arrested during the pendency of this appeal and, therefore, the appeal with respect to appellants No.

3 to 6 is rendered infructuous.

2. Submission made by counsel for appellants with respect to appellant No.1 is not opposed by counsel for State as also by the objector.

3. In view of the submission made by counsel for appellants with respect to appellant No.1 Sukhdev Lal S/o Late Bhagwan Datt Agrawal, his bail application is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. It is directed that in the event, appellant No.1 files an application for grant of regular bail before the Court below same may be considered, if possible, on the same day in accordance with law. Similarly, this appeal so far as it relates to appellants No.3 to 6, is dismissed as having become infructuous.

4. This appeal is being heard with respect to appellant No.2 Sukaj Bai.

5. 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, Chhattisgarh rejected application of appellant Sukaj Bai for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.01/2023 registered at Police Station AJAK, Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (CG) 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.

6. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that appellants belong to the family of 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.

7. Learned counsel for appellants submits that learned Court below erred in rejecting the application for grant of anticipatory bail only on the ground that in view of the bar under Section 18 of the Act, 1989 provision of Section 438 of CrPC will not apply. He contended that the allegations made against appellant No.2 Sukaj Bai that she sold the land, declared as excess land and vested into the Government, to the person belonging to the member of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes. The land which is alleged to have been sold is bearing Khasra No.299/5 and it is sold to Shankar S/o Bharat Lal Agrawal. From the documents placed on record in earlier appeal filed by Shrawan Agrawal etc., it is clearly reflecting that appellant No.2 has executed only one sale-deed in favour of the person belonging to the Other Backward Class and not to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.

8. Learned State Counsel opposing submissions made by counsel for appellants, submits that taking note of Section 18 of the Act, 1989 learned Court below has rightly dismissed the application filed under Section 438 of CrPC because the provisions of Section 438 of CrPC would not apply in the cases where the offence under t