{"id":158853,"date":"2004-03-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-03-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satyaprakash-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-march-2004"},"modified":"2018-03-17T12:12:09","modified_gmt":"2018-03-17T06:42:09","slug":"satyaprakash-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-march-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satyaprakash-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-march-2004","title":{"rendered":"Satyaprakash vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 March, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Chattisgarh High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Satyaprakash vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 March, 2004<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH)\n\n                   M.Cr.C. No.496 of 2004\n\n                                  Satyaprakash, S\/o\n                                   late Krishnachandra Verma,\n                                   aged about 40 years,\nOccupation: \n                                   Service presently working\nas\n                                   Assistant Labour\nCommissioner  \n                                   at Raipur, R\/o B\/371,\nCentral\n                                   Avenue, Smriti Nagar,\nBhilai\n                                   District: Durg.\n                                               ...Petitioners\n\n                        Versus\n\n                                                                                      Versus\n                                  State of Chhattisgarh,\nthrough\n                                   Station House Officer,\nSpecial\n                                   SC\/ST Police Station-Durg (C.G.)\n                                               ...Respondents\n\n\n! Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, counsel for the applicant.\n\n^ Shri A. K. Tiwari, Panel Lawyer for the State.\n\n Single Bench*: Hon'ble Shri L.C. Bhadoo J.\nPress any key to continue ...l\n\n Dated: 16\/03\/2004\n\n: Judgement \n\n\n                          O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n<p>                 (Passed on 16th March 2004)<\/p>\n<p>           The  accused\/applicant  has  preferred  this  bail<br \/>\napplication  under  Section 438 of the  Cr.P.C.  apprehending<br \/>\narrest  in  Crime No.88\/2002, Police Station:  Special  SC\/ST<br \/>\nPolice   Station,  Durg,  for  commission  of   the   offence<br \/>\npunishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes  and<br \/>\nScheduled  Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,  1989,  for<br \/>\nreleasing him on anticipatory bail before arrest.\n<\/p>\n<p>      (2)  Brief facts relevant for the disposal of this bail<br \/>\napplication are that one Mangaldas Barle lodged a report on 6-<br \/>\n10-2002 with the Police Station Anusuchit Jati Kanyan,  Durg,<br \/>\nwith  the allegations that on 26-8-2002 at about 5:30  pm  in<br \/>\nthe   evening   he   went  to  meet  Mr.  Jangde,   Assistant<br \/>\nCommissioner,   in  his  office  situated  near   Ravishankar<br \/>\nStadium, Manas Bhawan, Durg.  When he reached at the gate  of<br \/>\nthe  office,  he saw that one person wearing dark  red  shirt<br \/>\ncoming  out  of the gate.  He enquired from him  whether  Mr.<br \/>\nJangde,  Assistant Labour Commissioner, is in office or  not,<br \/>\nthen  that  person  asked  for  his  name  and  in  reply  he<br \/>\nintroduced  himself to that person.  He again enquired  about<br \/>\nthe  presence of Mr. Jangde then that person said  that  &#8220;Woh<br \/>\nChammar  Sale  Beech ke kamre mein Baitha Hai Mil  Lo&#8221;  (that<br \/>\nChammar  is sitting in the middle room, you meet him).   Then<br \/>\nhe  asked him as to why he is abusing him in the name of  the<br \/>\ncaste,  as he is also from the same caste, then he said  that<br \/>\n`you  are  also chammar&#8217;, if I would not address  Chammar  to<br \/>\nChammar  then  I  should address you as `Brahmin&#8217;  and  while<br \/>\nabusing, he started beating him.  On hearing the noise Jangde<br \/>\nSaheb  along with three persons came out, saw that  incident,<br \/>\nand intervened.  Thereafter that person went away abusing  in<br \/>\nthe  filthy language.  Then he enquired from Jangde that  who<br \/>\nwas this person? Then he said that he was Satyaprakash Verma,<br \/>\nAssistant  Labour  Commissioner.  On this report  the  Police<br \/>\nregistered  the case under Section 3(1)(x) of  the  Scheduled<br \/>\nCastes  and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)  Act,<br \/>\n1989  (hereinafter referred to as `the Act,  1989)   and  the<br \/>\nmatter is under investigation.\n<\/p>\n<p>      (3)   Mr. Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer opposed the bail<br \/>\napplication  by  raising  preliminary  objections  that   the<br \/>\noffence  is  alleged to have been committed  under  Scheduled<br \/>\nCastes  and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)  Act,<br \/>\n1989  under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and Section 18 of  the<br \/>\nAct  put  a  bar against the consideration of the application<br \/>\nfor  anticipatory bail.  It would be relevant here  to  refer<br \/>\nSection 18 of the Act which reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n<p>     Section 18.  Section 438 of the Code do not apply to the<br \/>\nperson committed offence under the Act:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>               &#8220;Nothing  in  Section 438  of  the  Code<br \/>\n         shall apply in relation to the nature of  case<br \/>\n         involving   the  arrest  of  the   person   on<br \/>\n         accusation  of  having committed  the  offence<br \/>\n         under this Act.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>      (4)   On  the  other  hand,  learned  counsel  for  the<br \/>\naccused\/applicant argued that as per the settled law the High<br \/>\nCourt  is  not  prevented from entertaining  the  application<br \/>\nunder  Section  438  of the Cr.P.C. if the  contents  of  the<br \/>\nF.I.R.  do  not disclose the commission of the offence  under<br \/>\nthe  Act, 1989.  He further argued that on the facts  and  in<br \/>\nthe circumstances if prima facie it appears to the Court that<br \/>\nthe  allegations in the F.I.R. are so exaggerated, improbable<br \/>\nand  unbelievable and the applicant is able to establish that<br \/>\nthe allegations in the said F.I.R. appear to blackmail or  to<br \/>\nwreck  some  personal  vengeance  for  settling  and  scoring<br \/>\npersonal  vendetta  or by way of some counter-blasts  against<br \/>\nopponents some public servants, then the Court is entitled to<br \/>\nentertain the application.\n<\/p>\n<p>      (5)   Learned counsel for the accused\/applicant further<br \/>\nargued that if we take this F.I.R. in the background in which<br \/>\nthe  case  was  registered  that when  the  applicant  was  a<br \/>\nsuccessor  Assistant  Labour  Commissioner  to            Mr.<br \/>\nJangde,  he made a complaint about the embezzlement committed<br \/>\nby              Mr. Jangde to the Chief Secretary, Arun Kumar<br \/>\non 19-8-2002 in which he said that &#8220;presently I am faced with<br \/>\nsuch a situation where I have no way except to report to  the<br \/>\nguardian  of all officers of the State. Sir I had surfaced  a<br \/>\nvery  big financial misappropriation involving lacs of rupees<br \/>\nand  as  a  result of my endeavour Challan was filed  in  the<br \/>\nCourt  and the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,<br \/>\nDurg  while  taking the cognizance of the crime  ordered  the<br \/>\nregistration of Criminal Case under Section 409, 120-B, 34 of<br \/>\nI.P.C.  against PN Ratrey Labour Inspector and SL Jangde  and<br \/>\nShri  P.N.  Ratrey in conspiracy with S.L. Jangde  had  taken<br \/>\nRs.30\/-  per labour from the Thekedars and thereby huge  loss<br \/>\nhas  been  caused  to  the State Government.&#8221;   Copy  of  the<br \/>\ncomplaint  is  Annexure-A\/5.  Therefore, in  this  background<br \/>\nShri  S.L.  Jangde  and another conspired  to  implicate  the<br \/>\napplicant in a false case and that is why Mangaldas Barle has<br \/>\nbeen  used  as  a  tool to falsely implicate  the  applicant.<br \/>\nApart  from  Annexure-A\/5,  the complaint  was  made  by  the<br \/>\naccused\/applicant  against Mr. Jangde  and  Labour  Inspector<br \/>\nP.N. Ratrey.\n<\/p>\n<p>     (6)   Now,  the point raised by the learned counsel  for<br \/>\nthe  State  and the learned counsel for the applicant  is  no<br \/>\nlonger res integra.  As per the settled law on this point the<br \/>\nHigh  Court while deciding the bail application under Section<br \/>\n438  of  the Cr.P.C. pertaining to commission of the  offence<br \/>\nunder  the  provisions of Act, 1989, if the contents  of  the<br \/>\nF.I.R.  or  the  complaint disclose  the  commission  of  the<br \/>\noffence, the courts would not be justified in entering into a<br \/>\nfurther  inquiry  by summoning the case diary  or  any  other<br \/>\nmaterial  as to whether the allegations are true or false  or<br \/>\nwhether   there  is  any  preponderance  of  probability   of<br \/>\ncommission  of  such  an offence. At this  stage,  the  Court<br \/>\ncannot examine and scrutinize the record of the case in order<br \/>\nto  ascertain  the  veracity  of the  F.I.R.\/complaint.   The<br \/>\nprovisions of Section 18 of the Act, 1989 put a complete  bar<br \/>\nagainst  entertainment of application  of  anticipatory  bail<br \/>\nwhere  prima  facie the contents of the F.I.R.  disclose  the<br \/>\ningredients  of commission of the offence under  the  Act  of<br \/>\n1989,  which  is  apparent from the perusal  of  the  section<br \/>\nitself  and  thus the Court at the most would be required  to<br \/>\nevaluate the FIR itself with a view to find out if the  facts<br \/>\nemerging  therefrom  taken at their face value  disclose  the<br \/>\nexistence   of  the  ingredients  constituting  the   alleged<br \/>\noffence,  then the Court would not be justified  in  entering<br \/>\ninto  an  inquiry  as to the reliability  or  genuineness  or<br \/>\notherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint<br \/>\nby  calling  for the case diary, charge sheet  or  any  other<br \/>\nmaterial gathered at the time of investigation.  But, if  the<br \/>\nallegations in the F.I.R. or the complaint even if  they  are<br \/>\ntaken  at their face value are accepted in their entirety  do<br \/>\nnot  constitute  the offence alleged, it  is  only  in  those<br \/>\nminiscule  number of cases, the courts would be justified  in<br \/>\nentertaining  the application, not because it is maintainable<br \/>\nbut  clearly  because  the Act would be inapplicable  on  the<br \/>\nfacts and in the circumstances of that particular case.  Thus<br \/>\nthe application for anticipatory bail can be entertained only<br \/>\non  the  ground of inapplicability of the Act of 1989 due  to<br \/>\nthe  facts  of  the case which will have to be gathered  only<br \/>\nfrom the FIR and not beyond that.\n<\/p>\n<p>     (7)   In the light of the above principle in respect  of<br \/>\nentertaining the application for anticipatory bail in respect<br \/>\nof  offences relating to the Act, 1989, if we look  into  the<br \/>\ningredients  of  the  offence alleged  in  the  present  case<br \/>\nagainst  the  applicant,  Section 3(1)(x)  of  the  Scheduled<br \/>\nCastes  and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)  Act,<br \/>\n1989  lays  down  that  &#8220;(a) there must  be  an  &#8220;intentional<br \/>\ninsult&#8221;  or  &#8220;intimidation&#8221; with &#8220;intend&#8221; to humiliate  SC\/ST<br \/>\nmember  by a non-SC\/ST member; (b) and that insult must  have<br \/>\nbeen done in any place within the &#8220;Public view&#8221;.&#8221; The wording<br \/>\nof the section makes it crystal clear that the mens rea is an<br \/>\nessential ingredient of the offence and it must also be prima<br \/>\nfacie  established that the accused had the knowledge at  the<br \/>\ntime of commission of the offence that the victim belongs  to<br \/>\nthe SC\/ST and that the offence was committed for that reason.<br \/>\nMerely  calling  a  person by caste  would  not  attract  the<br \/>\nprovisions  of  this Act. Merely alleging  that  the  accused<br \/>\nuttered  humiliating words may not be enough.  This  being  a<br \/>\npenal provision has to be given a strict interpretation.   If<br \/>\nany  of  the  ingredients  is found  missing,  it  would  not<br \/>\nconstitute the offence.\n<\/p>\n<p>     (8)   In  the  light of the above, if we look  into  the<br \/>\nfacts  of  the present case Mr. Mangaldas Barle met with  the<br \/>\nperson  at  the gate of the office and when he enquired  from<br \/>\nthat person about Mr. Jangde that whether he is in office  or<br \/>\nnot  then  said  that &#8220;Woh Chammar Sale Beech ke  kamre  mein<br \/>\nBaitha  Hai  Mil  Lo&#8221;,  at that time  apart  from  these  two<br \/>\npersons, no other person was there as per the allegations  in<br \/>\nthe  F.I.R..  Even  Mr. Jangde was not present  because  with<br \/>\nreference to him these words were used. Therefore, it  cannot<br \/>\nbe  considered that these words were uttered in  the  &#8220;Public<br \/>\nview&#8221;.   &#8220;Public view&#8221; means that the words were  uttered  in<br \/>\nthe  presence  of  some other persons and that  too  with  an<br \/>\nintention  to  `insult&#8217; or `humiliate&#8217;  or  `intimidate&#8217;  the<br \/>\ncaste  person.   Even the word that &#8220;You are chammar&#8221;!  If  I<br \/>\nshall not call you Chammar then shall I call you as Brahmin&#8221;.<br \/>\nThese words were also not uttered in the public view.  It has<br \/>\nfurther  been  mentioned that after  hearing  the  noise  Mr.<br \/>\nJangde  and 3 persons came on the scene and then the  accused<br \/>\nleft  the scene abusing him in the insulting language.   But,<br \/>\nit has not been made clear that what was the actual word used<br \/>\nand  merely omnibus statement that the accused abusing in the<br \/>\ninsulting  language  is  not  sufficient  to  constitute  the<br \/>\noffence.  Therefore, if we take the F.I.R. on its face  value<br \/>\nthen  the essential ingredients for constituting the  offence<br \/>\nunder  Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and  Scheduled<br \/>\nTribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are missing.\n<\/p>\n<p>     (9)    Learned  Panel  Lawyer  placed  reliance  on  the<br \/>\njudgments of the Hon&#8217;ble Apex Court in the matter of <a href=\"\/doc\/1712895\/\">State of<br \/>\nM.P. V. Ram Kishna Balothia<\/a> reported in AIR 1995 SC 1198  and<br \/>\nVirendra Singh versus State of Rajasthan reported in 2000 (3)<br \/>\nCrimes  473.  Learned counsel for the accused\/applicant  also<br \/>\nplaced  reliance on the same case of Virendra  Singh  (supra)<br \/>\nand  in the matter of Mukesh Kumar Saini and others v.  State<br \/>\n(Delhi  Administration) reported in 2001 CRI. L.J. 4587.   In<br \/>\nthe  matter  of Ram Kishna Balothia (supra) the Hon&#8217;ble  Apex<br \/>\nCourt has held that:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>                 &#8220;The   above   statement   graphically<br \/>\n         describes   the   social   conditions    which<br \/>\n         motivated the said legislation. It is  pointed<br \/>\n         out  in  the  above Statement of  Objects  and<br \/>\n         Reasons  that  when member  of  the  Scheduled<br \/>\n         Castes  and  Scheduled  Tribes  assert   their<br \/>\n         rights   and   demand  statutory   protection,<br \/>\n         vested  interests  try to cow  them  down  and<br \/>\n         terrorise  them.   In these circumstances,  if<br \/>\n         anticipatory  bail  is not made  available  to<br \/>\n         persons  who  commit  such  offences,  such  a<br \/>\n         denial  cannot  be considered as  unreasonable<br \/>\n         or  violative of Article 14, as these offences<br \/>\n         form  distinct class by themselves and  cannot<br \/>\n         be compared with other offences.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     It was further held that:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                &#8220;However,  looking  to  the  historical<br \/>\n         background   relating  to  the   practice   of<br \/>\n         &#8220;Untouchability&#8221;  and  the  social   attitudes<br \/>\n         which  lead to the commission of such offences<br \/>\n         against   Scheduled   Castes   and   Scheduled<br \/>\n         Tribes,   there   is  justification   for   an<br \/>\n         apprehension   that   if   the   benefit    of<br \/>\n         anticipatory  bail is made  available  to  the<br \/>\n         persons  who  are  alleged to  have  committed<br \/>\n         such  offences, there is every  likelihood  of<br \/>\n         their   misusing   their  liberty   while   on<br \/>\n         anticipatory  bail to terrorise their  victims<br \/>\n         and to prevent a proper investigation.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                                        (Emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n<p>     (10) Therefore, in the light of the above discussion and<br \/>\nthe  law  laid down by the Hon&#8217;ble Apex Court in  respect  of<br \/>\nentertaining the application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>in  the matter of offences relating to the Act, 1989, I am of<br \/>\nthe  opinion  that it is a fit case in which the  benefit  of<br \/>\nSection  438  of  the  Cr.P.C.  should  be  extended  to  the<br \/>\naccused\/applicant.  Accordingly, the application is  allowed.<br \/>\nIt is, therefore, directed that in the event of arrest of the<br \/>\naccused\/applicant  namely, Satyaprakash  if  he  furnishes  a<br \/>\npersonal bond of Rs.10,000\/- with a surety in the like sum to<br \/>\nthe satisfaction of the Investigating Officer, he be released<br \/>\non anticipatory bail.  However, he shall abide the conditions<br \/>\nprovided under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. i.e. he shall  make<br \/>\nhimself  available for interrogation by a police  officer  as<br \/>\nand  when required; he shall not directly or indirectly, make<br \/>\nany  inducement,  threat or promise to any person  acquainted<br \/>\nwith  the  facts  of  the case so as to  dissuade  them  from<br \/>\ndisclosing such facts to the Court or to any police  officer.<br \/>\nThis  order shall remain effective for a period of two months<br \/>\nfrom  today.   During  this period the accused\/applicant  may<br \/>\napply for regular bail.\n<\/p>\n<p>     (11)  Before parting with this order, it is  made  clear<br \/>\nthat  the  above  discussion has  been  used  to  decide  the<br \/>\napplication  for anticipatory bail and the trial Court  shall<br \/>\nnot be influenced by any of the observations made in the said<br \/>\norder  at any stage of the matter because it became necessary<br \/>\nto  make these observations to decide the bail application in<br \/>\nthe light of the objections raised by the learned counsel for<br \/>\nthe State.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                              L.C.Bhadoo<br \/>\n                                              J u d g e<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Chattisgarh High Court Satyaprakash vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 March, 2004 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) M.Cr.C. No.496 of 2004 Satyaprakash, S\/o late Krishnachandra Verma, aged about 40 years, Occupation: Service presently working as Assistant Labour Commissioner at Raipur, R\/o B\/371, Central Avenue, Smriti Nagar, Bhilai District: Durg. &#8230;Petitioners Versus Versus State [&hellip;]<\/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-158853","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-chattisgarh-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Satyaprakash vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/satyaprakash-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-march-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Satyaprakash vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satyaprakash-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-march-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2004-03-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-17T06:42:09+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satyaprakash-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-march-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satyaprakash-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-march-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Satyaprakash vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 March, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-03-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-17T06:42:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satyaprakash-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-march-2004\"},\"wordCount\":2308,\"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\\\/satyaprakash-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-march-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satyaprakash-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-march-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satyaprakash-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-march-2004\",\"name\":\"Satyaprakash vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-03-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-17T06:42:09+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satyaprakash-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-march-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satyaprakash-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-march-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satyaprakash-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-march-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Satyaprakash vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 March, 2004\"}]},{\"@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":"Satyaprakash vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/satyaprakash-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-march-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Satyaprakash vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satyaprakash-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-march-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-03-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-17T06:42:09+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satyaprakash-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-march-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satyaprakash-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-march-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Satyaprakash vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 March, 2004","datePublished":"2004-03-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-17T06:42:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satyaprakash-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-march-2004"},"wordCount":2308,"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\/satyaprakash-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-march-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satyaprakash-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-march-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satyaprakash-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-march-2004","name":"Satyaprakash vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-03-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-17T06:42:09+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satyaprakash-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-march-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satyaprakash-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-march-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satyaprakash-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-march-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Satyaprakash vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 March, 2004"}]},{"@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\/158853","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=158853"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/158853\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=158853"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=158853"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=158853"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}