Advocates:
['Ganesh RAm Burman', '', 'Tarendra Kumar Jha', 'Bhaskar Jha', 'Narayan Prasad Thakur', 'A G', '', 'J K GUPTA OBJECTOR', 'DEVERSHI THAKUR', 'SYED ISHHADIL ALI', 'Shubham Thakur', 'Anchal Kumar Matre', 'SATYENDRA SRIVAS']

1

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

CRA No. 214 of 2021

•

Amit Awasthi son of Ram Kishore Awasthi, aged about

30 years, R/o village Nayapara, Khurd, Police Station

Pithora, District Mahasamund (C.G.)

---- Appellant

Versus

• State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Station House

O昀케cer, Police Station Pithora, District Mahasamund

(C.G.)

---- Respondent

For Appellant

:

Mr. T.K. Jha, Advocate

For Respondent

:

Mr. Devesh Verma, G.A.

For Objector

:

Mr. J.K. Gupta, Advocate

Hon'ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey

Order on Board

31

/03/2021

1.

The appellant has preferred this criminal appeal under

Section 14(A) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for grant of

anticipatory bail, as he apprehends his arrest in

connection with Crime No.291/2020, registered at Police

Station – Pithora, District Mahasamund (C.G.) for the

o昀昀ence punishable under Sections 376, 376 (2) (n) IPC

and Section 3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocity), Act, 1989 (for

short 'the Act 1989') (as amended Act No.1/2016).

2. The prosecution story, according to FIR is that, the

complainant/prosecutrix and the applicant are posted in

same department and same o昀케ce. They were in love

with each other prior to seven years. The appellant

2

committed sexual intercourse with her on the pretext of

marriage and when the applicant refused to marry her,

she lodged the FIR on 28.11.2020.

3.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in

the case. He further submits that even if the entire

story, as stated in the FIR and the case diary statement,

is taken as it is, there is absolutely no element that the

appellant acted in such manner because of only she

belongs to the reserved category. He also submits that

the o昀昀ence under the Act 1989 has been added only on

the ground that the complainant belong to scheduled

category. In support of his submission, learned counsel

placed reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the matter of Hitesh Verma Vs. State of

Uttarakhand & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No.707/2020

arising out of SLP (Criminal ) No.3585/2020) and

Maheshwar Tigga Vs. State of Jharkhand (Criminal

Appeal No.635/2020 arising out of S.L.P. (Cri)

No.393/2020).

4.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State

opposed the bail application.

5.

Mr. J.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the Objector opposing

the bail application strenuously argued that the

applicant refused to marry the prosecutrix only on the

ground of her being the member of Scheduled Caste.

6.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

the case diary.

7.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the matter of

Maheshwar (supra), held that the prosecutrix willingly

consented to having sexual intercourse with the

appellant with whom she was deeply in love, not

because he promised to marry her, but because she also

3

desired it. In these circumstances, it would be very

di昀케cult to impute to the appellant knowledge that the

prosecutrix had consented in consequence of a

misconception of fact arising from his promise. In any

event, it was not possible for the appellant to know what

was in the mind of the prosecutrix when she consented,

because there were more reasons than one for her to

consent.

8.

Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of

Hitesh (supra), in para 18, held that o昀昀ence under the

Act is not established merely on the fact that the

informant is a member of Scheduled Caste unless there

is an intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled

Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the reason that the victim

belongs to such caste. In the present case, the parties

are litigating over possession of the land. The allegation

of hurling of abuses is against a person who claims title

over the