SHISHIR SHRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has preferred this bail application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 40 of 2015, registered in Police Station Kotwali, Kondagaon, District Kondagaon, District Kondgaon (Chhattisgarh), for offence punishable under Sections 365, 384 of IPC and Section 3(1)(vii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, "the Act, 1989"). The Act of 1989 was subjected to amendment by the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Ordinance, 2014 and Section 3(1)(vii) of the Act of 1989 is substituted in the Act of 1989 as Section 3(1)(I)(A). The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 12.02.2015 present applicant wrongfully confined Smt. Rukhdei Korram and forced her to voters in favour of particular candidate knowing fully well that she is a member of Scheduled Tribe and also subjected her to extortion thereby he committed the aforesaid offences.

(2.) Mr. Kanak Tiwari, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Sourabh Sharma, counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that after recording of Smt. R. Korram statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 14.02.2015 offence under Section 363 of the IPC was registered against the applicant and he was arrested on 22.02.2015 and the offence under Section 363 of the IPC being bailable offence, he was released on bail by the officer arresting him on 22.02.2015 and thereafter the statement of the Smt. R. Korram was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 25.02.2015 and thereupon additional charges for offence under Sections 365 and 384 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(vii) amended as 3(1)(I)(A) of the Act, 1989 have been added against the present applicant which is outcome of after-thought in order to harass the applicant by sending him in jail. He would further submit that the applicant has not misused the bail granted by the trial Court for offence under Section 363 of the IPC. He would additionally submit that the prima facie offence under Section 3(1)(vii) as amended as 3(1)(I)(A) of the Act, 1989 is not made out as there is no allegation of intimidation or forcing the complainant to vote in a favour of particular candidate or to vote in a manner other than that provided by law, and as such bar of Section 18 of the Act, 1989 is not attracted at all, therefore the benefit of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. may be extended to the present applicant and he be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr. S.P. Kale, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondent/State, opposing the bail application would submit that Smt. R. Korram (Victim) in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. has clearly named the applicant who has forced her to vote in favour of a particular candidate and as such bar under Section 18 of the Act, 1989 is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case, therefore, the benefit of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. should not be extended to the applicant and applicant* deserves to be rejected.