Order on Board

08.07. 2022

1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the accused/applicant who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.229/2022 registered at Police Station- Mahasamund District- Mahasamund, CG for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 4, 5 & 6 of Chhattisgarh Tonhi Pratadna Adhiniyam, 2005.

2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that the complainant has lodged a report on 17.05.2022, inter alia on the allegations that on 17.05.2022 when he was sleeping in his house, he was called by his neigbor Dhruw Nishad at about 8:30 pm and taken near to the Banyan tree at the same time Kejuram, Rikhiram and Mohit were also called. Applicant (Baiga) was also there, he asked wife of Dhruw Nishad namely Sumitra Nishad that who did witchcraft, she replied that Parasram, Kejuram, Rajbai and Khorbahrin did witchcraft upon her, thereafter Dhruw Nishad abused the complainant and other members and also threatened them and therefore, he has committed an offence under the Tohni Pratadna Adhiniyam.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the main accused is Dhruw Nishad and present applicant is not doing any witchcraft(Baiga) he is Sarpanch of the village and the only allegation which is reflected that he asked the complainant & other people to do what Dhruw Nishad told them to do. Apart from this he has not uttered anything which shall fall under Sections 4, 5 & 6 of the Tohni Pratadna Act and rest of the sections are not attracted upon the applicant. He further submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He also submits that the applicant is person of repute and in case of his arrest, his reputation is most likely to be damaged.

4. Learned State counsel opposes the application for anticipatory bail and submits that though the main allegation is leveled against the co-accused Dhruw Nishad. However, looking to the role played by the applicant, his application should be rejected.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, looking at the totality of the circumstances, overt act as alleged against applicant, this Court finds it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer, on the following conditions:-

(a)he shall make himself available for interrogation by the concerned police officer as and when so required.

(b)he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such fact to the Court or to any police officer, (c)he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, (d)After filing of the charge-sheet, he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial, (f)he shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future.

6. The observations made hereinabove is only for the purpose of deciding the bail application and it will affect the merits of the case which shall be decided by the trial Court on its own merits without being influenced by any observation made hereinabove.