CHARUBEN SATISHBHAI CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants in these two Appeals are original accused shown in the FIR and they have preferred these Appeals under Sec. 14 A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act ') praying for anticipatory bail in connection with FIR registered at C.R. No.11191008210788 of 2021 with Chandkheda Police Station, Ahmedabad City for the alleged offence punishable under Ss. 294(b), 323, 427 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Ss. 3(2)(va), 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of 'the Act '

(2.) Mr. Digpalsingh Rathore, learned advocate for the appellants, submitted that the appellants and the injured - Baluben are neighbours and the incident occurred at 6:30 in the morning on 7/6/2021 for which there are cross cases filed against each other. Mr. Rathore, learned advocate, submitted that though one of the son of the injured - Baluben stays with her, he did not file FIR whereas her another son, who is though staying in the same vicinity but somewhat far, has filed the present FIR. He has further submitted that one of the appellant - Charuben had received CLW with bruise on left forehead whereas the injured - Baluben in a cross case had complained of chest pain and tenderness only. He has further submitted that for a quarrel on domestic issue between the neighbours, where one of the appellant is actually injured, provisions of 'the Act ' could not have been invoked with a view to deprive the appellants of other statutory remedy available under the law by putting certain words in the mouth of the accused. He has further submitted that even if the FIR discloses averments so as to satisfy the ingredients of an offence under 'the Act ', in view of the nature of cross case and the injury on the part of one of the appellant, though the FIR is filed after about four days of the incident, though it is claimed that Baluben was referred to the hospital with police yadi, it is not recorded in injury certificate, however, the certificate issued by the hospital ofcourse on 7/6/2021 shows complain of only chest pain and tenderness, and therefore, he has submitted that the discretionary relief though invoking the same is barred under Sec. 18 of 'the Act ' be granted in favour of the appellants.

(3.) As against that Ms. Jirga Jhaveri, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, as also Mr. Zabuawala, learned advocate for respondent no. 2 - first informant, submitted that since the averments made in the FIR satisfies the ingredients of an offence invoked in the FIR in view of Sec. 18 of 'the Act ', these Appeals praying for an order of anticipatory bail be rejected.