Rajju @ Chatrabhan vs State Of Chhattisgarh

The present appeal is arising out of order dated 31-8-2021 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Mungeli, in BA No.257/2021.

The appellants have preferred this appeal under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

1989 (for short 'the Act, 1989') for grant of bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No.197/2021,

registered at Police Station Lormi, Chowki Chilfi, Mungeli, District Mungeli (CG), for the offence under Sections 506, 306 read with Section 34 of the

Indian Penal Code; Sections 4, 5 of the Chhattisgarh Tonahi Pratadna Act, 2005; and Sections 3(2)(5), 3(1) ( )( ) of the Act, 1989.

As per the prosecution case on 14-6-2021 an intimation was given by one Yashoda Bai that her mother set herself ablaze. Subsequently, the dying

declaration was recorded wherein the deceased named all the appellants i.e. Rajju @ Chatrabhan, Jagdish, Sarojini Bai & Sushila Bai that they along

with other villagers have abetted her by calling her as Tonahi. Consequently, she was forced to commit suicide.

Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that omnibus allegations were levelled against the appellants. He would further submit that in order

to attract Section 306 IPC, ingredients of Section 107 IPC would be necessary. According to him, mere allegation of abetment in absence of

averments of instigation would not make out an offence. He would also submit that at the time of incident on 14-6-2021 the appellant No.1 was

admitted in hospital, therefore, his involvement is completely ruled out. Learned counsel would next submit that the appellants No.3 & 4 are ladies and

they are aged about 80 years and 72 years, respectively. He would lastly submit that the co-accused has been enlarged on bail by the coordinate

Bench of this Court. Thus, the appellants may be enlarged on bail.

Learned counsel for the State, per contra, would oppose the prayer for grant of bail. Learned counsel would submit that the deceased was a

deserted lady and living alone. She was being tortured in the name of Tonahi. Learned counsel would further submit that in the dying declaration the

deceased taken the names of all the appellants, therefore, their case is different from that of villagers and hence they may not be released on bail.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The names of these appellants specifically taken by the deceased in the dying declaration. It is stated that the accused persons used to call her as

Tonahi and because of such abetment, she committed suicide by setting herself ablaze and, as such, prima facie, the submission of the appellants that

there is no abetment cannot be accepted, at this stage, as it can very well be presumed that by their acts and by their continuous course of conduct

created such a situation, as a consequence of which the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide. However, taking into fact

that the appellants No.3 & 4 are ladies and aged about 80 years & 72 years respectively and also considering their medical condition, I am inclined to

release the appellants No.3 & 4 on bail. However, I am not inclined to release the appellants No.1 & 2 on bail.

Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order is set-aside in respect of the appellants No.3 & 4 and in respect of the appellants

No.1 & 2 the appeal is dismissed.

Appellants No.3 Sarojini Bai & No.4 Sushila Bai are directed to be released on bail on each of them executing a personal bond for a sum of

Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. They are directed to appear before the trial Court on each and

every date given by the said Court.

Certified copy as per rules.