SANDEEP YADAV Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under sec. 14A of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short Special Act) is arising out of an order dtd. 28/9/2022 passed by Special Judge (Atrocities), District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) (for short the "Special Judge") in B.P. No. 849/22 by which the learned Special Judge has dismissed the application of the appellants under sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Appellants are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 303/2022, registered at Police Station - Pamgarh, District - Jamjgir-Champa (C.G.) for an alleged offence punishable under Sec. 294, 506, 323. 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sec. 3(2) (v-a), 3 (1) (r) (s) of the Special Act.

(2.) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 23/7/2022 at about 08.00 PM whe the present appellants were having snacks, complainants Rahul and Dharmendra asked for motor- cycle from them. The present appellants refused to lend them the motorcycle hence heated argument started between them which led to assault. Hence the said crime was registered against the appellants.

(3.) Mr. Pallav Mishra learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are innocent and they have not committed the aforesaid crime and have been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that it is a case of counter FIR. It is also submitted that the appellants have also lodged FIR against the complainant. From perusal of the FIR registered against the appellants no offence against them under the Special Act is made out. He submits that there is no whisper in the FIR that the said offence under Special Act has been committed by the appellants. According to the counsel for the appellants, appellants are young students and if they are sent to Jail, there future would be jeopardized. He further submits that the appellants have also received injuries in the alleged incident. Apart from the offences registered under the Special Act, rest of the offences are bailable in nature. He further submits that the appellants are a permanent residents of given address and they are ready and willing to comply with any of the conditions which may be imposed by this court while granting anticipatory bail. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs. Union of India reported in (2020) 4 SCC 727, Patan Jamal Vali Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 2021 SCC Online 343, order dtd. 13/9/2022 passed by co- ordinate Bench of this court in CRA No. 1056 of 2022 (Rafiq Khan and another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh).