Ajay Nayak @ Hemlal Nayak vs State Of Chhattisgarh

The appellant has preferred this Appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’) for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.111/2022, registered at Police Station Tendukona, District Mahasamund for offence under Sections 294/34, 420, 451, 506 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act.

Prosecution case is that complainant Radha Bariha along with Balraj Naidu and 9 others have given information that the present appellant in an fraudulent manner, after entering the house of the complainant, had forcible taken her withdrawal form, passbook and had withdrawn an amount of Rs.38,000/-, and the complainant, who belongs to the tribal community, was also abused in filthy language and caste based remarks. The appellant had also extended threat to kill her and also asked her to work in his brick kiln, otherwise return the amount of Rs.25,000/-, given in advance. Based on such allegations, offence has been registered.

Learned Senior counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated, as the present appellant is the member of Janpad, Block Pithora and also holding the post of Chairman of Agriculture Department of the said block, the appellant is also running the brick kiln, which is situated at some quite distance from Pithora. Only at the insistence of the complainant, the appellant has withdrawn the amount of Rs.38,000/- and handed over the said amount to the son of the complainant. He would further submit that the complainant was initially not aware of the return of the amount, therefore, she made a complaint. Thereafter on 31st August, 2022, the complaint was withdrawn in the presence of witnesses namely, Mahendra Sigh and Motiram. On 1st September, 2022, the complainant has entered into an agreement in the presence of Sarpanch, Lileshwar, in which also she has categorically stated that there is no money dispute with the present appellant, and the complainant has narrated the said fact in a Press Release, and copy of transcription and CD have been annexed in support of the bail application. The appellant is a political figure and it is for this reason also the appellant was roped in the offence by the others. He would further submit that to get the compensation amount under the Atrocities Act, the complainant is pursuing her compliant. Learned counsel also submits that Balraj and 9 others are taking much more interest, rather then the complainant to pursue the prosecution. The present appellant has not misused the liberty granted to him by this Court and a false and cooked up case has been registered against the present appellant. Considering all the aspects, the appellant may be released on anticipatory bail. Reliance is placed in the matter of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others {(2011) 1 SCC 694}.

On the other hand, learned State Counsel and the counsel for the Objector oppose the bail application on submission that the complainant is an illiterate, poor and tribal lady. Earlier she was working in the brick kiln of the present appellant. The present appellant in a forceful manner asked the complainant to work in his brick kiln. Learned State Counsel has read over the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC, as also the supplementary statement of the complainant, to submit that the complainant has reiterated that the present appellant pressurized the complainant by adopting all methods to work in his brick kiln or return the amount of Rs.25,000/-. Therefore, the bail application may be rejected.

Considering the submissions of the parties, particularly considering the backdrop of the case and the role attributed to the present appellant and the material available on record, this Court is not inclined to release the appellant on anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is dismissed.