Order On Board

07.02.2024

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 23.11.2023 by which learned Special Judge (Atrocities) Bilaspur (CG) rejected application of appellant for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.188/2022 registered at Police Station Pendra District Gourella-Pendra-Marwahi (CG) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC); Section 170-B of the CG Land Revenue Code, 1959 and Section 3 (1) (g) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act of 1989 (for brevity 'the Act of 1989').

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant lodged report in concerned police station alleging that applicant prepared forged document showing caste of Patram to be Lohar, general category, and got executed sale deed in his favour. Whereas, said Patram belongs to Aghariya caste, which falls under the Scheduled Tribe category. Based on the said complaint, aforementioned crime was registered against applicant.

3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that initially after lodging of FIR, applicant preferred application under Section 438 CrPC for grant of anticipatory bail bearing M.Cr.C. (A) No.694/2022, which was allowed vide order dated 20.7.2022. After completion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet before the Court below. At the time of accepting charge sheet, the Magistrate concerned observed that offence under Section 3 (1) (g) of the Act of 1989 is also attracted and therefore, police added said offence, which made the applicant to prefer fresh anticipatory bail application before the Special Court (Atrocities), Bilaspur and the same was rejected vide order impugned. He contended that applicant is the purchaser and resident of village Pendra, Applicant was in search of land to purchase, he was informed that Patram is intending to sell his land and therefore applicant shown his interest in purchasing land of Patram. It is the seller who had obtained revenue documents from the concerned Patwari for registration of sale deed in which caste of seller was mentioned as 'Aghariya (Lohar)', general category, and based on said revenue documents, applicant has purchased the land. Applicant was not aware that seller/owner of land belongs to scheduled tribe community and therefore, no offence as alleged would be made out.

4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposing submissions of learned counsel for appellant, would submit that during investigation, police seized caste certificate of Patram certifying that he belongs to scheduled tribe community and therefore, offence under the provisions of the Act of 1989 was also added. In view of bar under Section 18 of the Act of 1989, anticipatory bail application is not maintainable. The Court below has not committed any error in rejecting application of applicant. Upon asking, he submits that in the case diary, there is statement of Santram Aghariya, who has stated that members belonging to Aghariya community are engaged in occupation of manufacturing iron tools, due to illiteracy some of the members have mentioned their caste as 'Aghariya (Lohar)'.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with bail application.

6. Perusal of order dated 26.12.2019 (Annexure A-8) passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pendra Road would show that the SDO taking note of the order dated 20.2.2015 passed in Revenue Case No.5/A-23/2012-13 in which it was recorded that the Patwari in connivance corrected caste of Patram in the revenue records (khasra panchshala) as 'Aghariya (lohar), general category, and based on said record, sale deed was registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Pendra.

7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Prathvi Raj Chouhan vs.

Union of India, reported in (2020) 4 SCC 727, ha