VIJAY KUMAR PATEL Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as the applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with crime No. 213/2014 registered at police station Lailunga, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) for the alleged offence punishable under Section 455, 354 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(xi) Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, amended Section 3(1)(w)(i) of the Act as amended by Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Ordinance, 2014. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the applicant is working as Assistant Teacher in Primary School Dhanwarpara, where the complainant Devmati (who is a scheduled tribe) is also working as sweeper in that school. It is the further case of the prosecution that on 06.08.2014 the applicant finding the complainant alone entered in her house and caught hold of her and touched various parts of her body including hand and shoulder and used force to have sexual intercourse with her. The complainant any how ran away from the her house and informed her sister-in-law Smt. Mukti Bhagat, the applicant reached therein also and thereafter matter was reported to the Police Station Lailunga.

(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that he was not present at the place of incident on 06.08.2014 as he was on training from 05.08.2014 to 09.08.2014 at Sankul Kendra Lamdand and he has been falsely implicated in the instant crime in question. No ingredient of offence under Section 3(1)(xi) Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, amended Section 3(1)(w)(i) of the Act as amended by Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Ordinance, 2014 is made out against him and he is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail as bar under Section 18 of Act would not came into play.

(3.) On the other hand learned counsel for the State would be submit that the contents of the F.I.R. as well as the statement of complainant Devmati and the statement of her sister-in-law Smt. Mukti Bhagat would clearly make out an offence under Section 3(1)(w)(i) of the Act of 1989.