{"id":109800,"date":"2008-11-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-11-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagmohan-son-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-21-november-2008"},"modified":"2019-01-10T14:13:58","modified_gmt":"2019-01-10T08:43:58","slug":"jagmohan-son-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-21-november-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagmohan-son-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-21-november-2008","title":{"rendered":"Jagmohan Son vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 21 November, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Chattisgarh High Court<\/div>\n
Jagmohan Son vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 21 November, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n           HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR       \n\n\n\n\n\n\n                 Misc.Cr. C. A No. 439 of 2008\n\n\n                1.        Jagmohan son\n\n                 2.        Suban\n\n                 3.        Nan Babu\n                                ...Petitioners\n\n\n\n                 VERSUS\n\n                1.        State  of Chhattisgarh\n\n                 2.        Dilrakhan\n                                    ...Respondents\n\n\n\n!          Mrs. Meena Shashtri  counsel for the applicants.\n          Mr. D.K. Gwalare GA for the respondent\/State.\n\n^          Mr. A.K. Prasad counsel for respondent No.2\n\n\n\n\n\nHonble Mr.T.P.Sharma,J. \n<\/pre>\n
       Dated:21\/11\/2008<\/p>\n
:       Judgment<\/p>\n
    APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 438 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL
\n                         PROCEDURE.\n<\/p>\n
\n                         (O R D E R)
\n                         (21.11.2008)<\/p>\n
     This application has been filed for anticipatory bail as<\/p>\n
the  applicants are apprehending their arrest  in  connection<\/p>\n
with  Complaint  Case No. 104\/2007 pending before  the  Chief<\/p>\n
Judicial  Magistrate, Ambikapur for the  offences  punishable<\/p>\n
under sections 294, 506 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code  and<\/p>\n
section 3 (1) (v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled  Tribe<\/p>\n
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short the Act).<\/p>\n
2.    Learned  counsel for the applicant submits that  except<\/p>\n
the  offence punishable under section 3(1)(v) of the Act  all<\/p>\n
other  offences  are bailable in nature. He  further  submits<\/p>\n
that  the  complaint and the material available on record  do<\/p>\n
not  disclose the commission of the offence punishable  under<\/p>\n
section  3  (1)  (v) of the Act. He placed  reliance  on  the<\/p>\n
decision  of this Court in the matter of Somesh Das v.  State<\/p>\n
of  Chhattisgarh<\/a>  1 in which it has been  held  that  if  the<\/p>\n
allegation   made  in  the  complaint  raises   doubt   about<\/p>\n
genuineness  of  complaint, on the basis of previous  dispute<\/p>\n
between  the  parties it cannot be said that there  is  prima<\/p>\n
facie case in terms of Section 3 (1) (10) of the Act. Further<\/p>\n
reliance  is  placed on the decision of  this  Court  in  the<\/p>\n
matter  of  Satyaprakash v. State of C.G. 2 in which  it  has<\/p>\n
been  held that in the absence of allegation for the  offence<\/p>\n
punishable  under section 3(1)(10) of the Act in the  FIR  or<\/p>\n
complainant,  application under section 438 of  the  Code  is<\/p>\n
maintainable. It is further submitted by the counsel for  the<\/p>\n
applicants  that  even if the allegations  made  against  the<\/p>\n
applicants  are taken to be true, the offence  under  Section<\/p>\n
3(1) (v) of the Act is not made out against them.<\/p>\n
3.    On  the  other  hand  counsel for the  respondent\/State<\/p>\n
opposes  the  application for anticipatory bail  and  submits<\/p>\n
that the offence punishable under section 3(1) (v) of the Act<\/p>\n
is  a  non  bailable offence. Moreover, the  application  for<\/p>\n
anticipatory  bail  under section 438 of  the  Code  for  the<\/p>\n
offence  punishable under section 3(1)(v) of the Act  is  not<\/p>\n
tenable in view of the bar of Section 18 of the Act.<\/p>\n
4.     The  application is also opposed by Shri  A.K.  Prasad<\/p>\n
counsel for the respondent No.2 and it is submitted that  the<\/p>\n
complainant  has collected the material to prima  facie  show<\/p>\n
the commission of offence punishable under section 3(1)(x) of<\/p>\n
the  Act  against  the  applicants  that  they  insulted  the<\/p>\n
respondent No.2 by using the word “Chamar, and therefore, the<\/p>\n
applicants are not entitled for anticipatory bail.<\/p>\n
5.    In  the  instant  case, the offences  punishable  under<\/p>\n
sections  294,  506  and 447  of the Indian  Penal  Code  and<\/p>\n
section  3  (1) (10) of the Act have been registered  against<\/p>\n
the  applicants.  In this case there was a dispute  regarding<\/p>\n
possession  of  the  land and the applicants  tried  to  take<\/p>\n
possession of the said land. It has not been mentioned in the<\/p>\n
complaint that the applicants tried to take possession of the<\/p>\n
land forcibly on the very basis that the respondent No.2 is a<\/p>\n
member of Scheduled Caste but he tried to take possession  of<\/p>\n
the land with a view to cultivate the land.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
6.    Application for grant of anticipatory bail in terms  of<\/p>\n
Section  438  of  the Code is sustainable  for  the  offences<\/p>\n
punishable  under  the Indian Penal Code.  The  only  bar  is<\/p>\n
created   under  Section  18  of  the  Act  for  the  offence<\/p>\n
punishable under Section 3 (1) (10) of the Act. While dealing<\/p>\n
with  the  applicability of section 438 of the Code  for  the<\/p>\n
offence  punishable under section 3 (1) (10) of the  Act,  in<\/p>\n
the  matter  of  State  of M.P. and another  v.  Ram  Krishna<\/p>\n
Balothia  and  another 3 it has been held by the  Apex  Court<\/p>\n
that  Section 438 of the Code does not form an integral  part<\/p>\n
of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Section 18 of the<\/p>\n
Act  denying  the application of provisions for  anticipatory<\/p>\n
bail  to  those  accused under the Act,  cannot  be  said  as<\/p>\n
violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.<\/p>\n
6.    Provision of Section 438 of the Code is a general  rule<\/p>\n
for  granting anticipatory bail but bar of anticipatory  bail<\/p>\n
under  Section 18 of the Act is an exception to  the  general<\/p>\n
rule. In case of any exception the prosecution is required to<\/p>\n
show  prima  facie the facts which attract  the  bar  in  the<\/p>\n
general rule. Without there being any material to this effect<\/p>\n
it  cannot  be  said that the person concerned would  not  be<\/p>\n
entitled  for  anticipatory  bail  as  he  has  been   merely<\/p>\n
described as accused by the Police for committing an  offence<\/p>\n
punishable  under the provisions of the Act.  There  must  be<\/p>\n
material  available  on record to show  that  the  person  is<\/p>\n
involved in the offence punishable under the provision of the<\/p>\n
said  Act.  While dealing with the application under  section<\/p>\n
438  of  the  Code,  the  Court is required  to  examine  the<\/p>\n
material collected by the prosecution or the complainant  and<\/p>\n
if  the  Court finds prima facie sufficient material for  the<\/p>\n
commission of the offence under the Act, then the bar created<\/p>\n
under  Section 18 of the Act comes into play and  it  is  not<\/p>\n
competent to grant bail under Section 438 of the Code. But if<\/p>\n
it  does  not  find any such material against  the  applicant<\/p>\n
under  the  provisions of the Act, then it  is  competent  to<\/p>\n
consider the application filed under Section 438 of the Code.<\/p>\n
Merely by mentioning section of the Act does not create a bar<\/p>\n
for  considering  the application under Section  438  of  the<\/p>\n
Code.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
7.   As held in the case of Satya Prakash (supra) at the time<\/p>\n
of  examination of the material, the Court is required to see<\/p>\n
whether the FIR or the complaint discloses the commission  of<\/p>\n
offence punishable under the provisions of the Act. The Court<\/p>\n
is required to see the FIR or the complaint in its face value<\/p>\n
and  at  this  stage it is not necessary for  it  to  closely<\/p>\n
examine  or  scrutinize the material available on  record  in<\/p>\n
order  to ascertain the veracity of the allegations  made  in<\/p>\n
the  FIR  or the complaint. In the case of Somesh Das (supra)<\/p>\n
it  has  been held by this Court that if on the face  of  the<\/p>\n
record  it raises doubt about the genuineness of the  FIR  or<\/p>\n
the  complaint and that there was an earlier dispute  between<\/p>\n
the   parties,  it  may  be  inferred  for  the  purpose   of<\/p>\n
entertaining the application under Section 438  of  the  Code<\/p>\n
that the complainant or the prosecution could not be able  to<\/p>\n
collect  the  prima facie material against the applicant.  In<\/p>\n
the  case of Abdul Abbas (supra) it has been held that if the<\/p>\n
intention of humiliation to the member of the Scheduled Tribe<\/p>\n
is not discovered from the FIR, application under section 438<\/p>\n
of the Code is maintainable.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
8.    While  dealing with insult in respect of  a  member  of<\/p>\n
Scheduled  Caste community, in the matter of Swarn Singh  and <\/p>\n
others v. State through Standing counsel and another 4 it has<\/p>\n
been  held  by  the Apex Court calling a member of  Scheduled<\/p>\n
Caste  “chamar” with intent to insult or humiliate him  in  a<\/p>\n
place   within  the  public  view  is  certainly  an  offence<\/p>\n
punishable  under  Section 3 (1) (10) of  the  Act.  Relevant<\/p>\n
portion reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
     “Para  25:  A  perusal of the FIR clearly  shows
\n     that,  prima  facie,  an  offence  is  made  out
\n     against  appellants 2 and 3. As  already  stated
\n     above,  at this stage we have not to see whether
\n     the  allegations in the FIR are correct or  not.
\n     We  only  have to see whether treating  the  FIR
\n     allegations as correct an offence is made out or
\n     not. In our opinion, treating the allegations in
\n     the  FIR  to be correct an offence under Section
\n     3(1)(x)  of  the  Act is prima  facie  made  out
\n     against  Appellants  2 and 3  because  it  prima
\n     facie  seems  that the intent of the  appellants
\n     was  to insult or humiliate the first informant,
\n     and this was done within the public view.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Thus  from  the above-cited decision it is clear that  prima<\/p>\n
facie  commission  of offence has to be seen  from  the  FIR<\/p>\n
treating the allegations contained in it to be correct.<\/p>\n
9.    Taking into consideration the rival contentions of the<\/p>\n
parties  and going through the material available on record,<\/p>\n
I am of the view that at this stage, the prosecution has not<\/p>\n
collected any material against the applicants to prima  face<\/p>\n
show   that  the  applicants  have  committed  the   offence<\/p>\n
punishable under section 3 (1)(x) of the Act.<\/p>\n
10.   Consideration  for  bail is  different  from  that  of<\/p>\n
framing  the  charge  or making out  the  case  against  the<\/p>\n
applicant  for  trial  even if strong  suspicion  is  there.<\/p>\n
Therefore, in the light of the above discussion and the  law<\/p>\n
laid  down by the Apex Court in respect of entertaining  the<\/p>\n
application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in  the  matter<\/p>\n
of  offences relating to the Act, 1989, I am of the  opinion<\/p>\n
that it is a fit case in which the benefit of Section 438 of<\/p>\n
the  Cr.P.C.  should  be extended to the accused\/applicants.<\/p>\n
Accordingly,  the application is allowed. It is,  therefore,<\/p>\n
directed   that   in   the   event   of   arrest   of    the<\/p>\n
accused\/applicants namely Jagmohan, Suban and Nan  Babu,  if  <\/p>\n
on  their  production before the trial Court they furnish  a<\/p>\n
personal bond of Rs. 10,000\/- each with a surety in the like<\/p>\n
sum to the satisfaction of the said Court.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
12.   Trial  Court shall not be influenced  by  any  of  the<\/p>\n
observations  made  in  this  order  and  shall  proceed  in<\/p>\n
accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
                                             JUDGE<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Chattisgarh High Court Jagmohan Son vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 21 November, 2008 HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Misc.Cr. C. A No. 439 of 2008 1. Jagmohan son 2. Suban 3. Nan Babu …Petitioners VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh 2. Dilrakhan …Respondents ! Mrs. Meena Shashtri counsel for the applicants. Mr. D.K. Gwalare GA […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[12,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-109800","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-chattisgarh-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nJagmohan Son vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 21 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagmohan-son-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-21-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jagmohan Son vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 21 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagmohan-son-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-21-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-11-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-10T08:43:58+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagmohan-son-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-21-november-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagmohan-son-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-21-november-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jagmohan Son vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 21 November, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-10T08:43:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagmohan-son-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-21-november-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1563,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Chattisgarh High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagmohan-son-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-21-november-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagmohan-son-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-21-november-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagmohan-son-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-21-november-2008\",\"name\":\"Jagmohan Son vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 21 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-10T08:43:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagmohan-son-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-21-november-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagmohan-son-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-21-november-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagmohan-son-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-21-november-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jagmohan Son vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 21 November, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Jagmohan Son vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 21 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagmohan-son-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-21-november-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jagmohan Son vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 21 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagmohan-son-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-21-november-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-11-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-10T08:43:58+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagmohan-son-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-21-november-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagmohan-son-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-21-november-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jagmohan Son vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 21 November, 2008","datePublished":"2008-11-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-10T08:43:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagmohan-son-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-21-november-2008"},"wordCount":1563,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Chattisgarh High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagmohan-son-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-21-november-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagmohan-son-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-21-november-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagmohan-son-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-21-november-2008","name":"Jagmohan Son vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 21 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-11-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-10T08:43:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagmohan-son-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-21-november-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagmohan-son-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-21-november-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagmohan-son-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-21-november-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jagmohan Son vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 21 November, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/109800","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=109800"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/109800\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=109800"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=109800"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=109800"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}