Case Note & Summary
The judgment pertains to two criminal appeals filed under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, against the rejection of anticipatory bail applications by the Sessions Court. The appellants, Yuvraj Mohansingh Pardeshi, Sudarshan Krishnasingh Pardeshi, and Ketan Dilipsingh Raghuvanshi, were accused in Crime No. 292 of 2018 registered at Nandurbar City Police Station for offences under Sections 143, 147, 323, 504 read with 149 and 395 of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Act. The incident occurred on 03-09-2018 during the Gokulasthmi Festival when a Dahihandi event was organized. The first informant, Pintu Narendra Maske, alleged that the appellants and others abused him using his caste name and assaulted him. The appellants sought anticipatory bail, which was rejected by the Sessions Court on the ground of the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act. The High Court examined the FIR and found that the allegations did not prima facie disclose the ingredients of the offences under the SC/ST Act, as the alleged abuse was not in a place within public view and lacked intent to humiliate on caste basis. The court held that the bar under Section 18 does not apply when the allegations do not make out a prima facie case under the Act. Considering the nature of the allegations, the role of the accused, and the fact that investigation was complete, the court granted anticipatory bail to the appellants on certain conditions.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Anticipatory Bail - Section 438 CrPC - Bar under Section 18 of SC/ST Act - Maintainability - The court considered whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the FIR alleges offences under the SC/ST Act. Held that the bar under Section 18 does not apply if the allegations do not prima facie constitute an offence under the Act. The court must examine the FIR to see if the ingredients of the alleged offences are made out. (Paras 5-10) B) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Offences under Sections 3(1)(r)(s) - Intent to Humiliate - The court examined the allegations that the accused abused the complainant using caste names. Held that mere use of caste names without intent to humiliate or in a private quarrel does not attract the provisions. The insult must be in a place within public view and with deliberate intent to humiliate. (Paras 11-15) C) Criminal Procedure Code - Anticipatory Bail - Section 438 CrPC - Factors for Grant - The court considered the nature and gravity of the offence, the role of the accused, and the likelihood of tampering with evidence. Held that since the allegations were general and the accused were not likely to abscond or tamper with evidence, anticipatory bail should be granted. (Paras 16-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellants are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC in view of the bar under Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, when the allegations do not prima facie disclose the ingredients of the offences under the Act.
Final Decision
Appeals allowed. The impugned orders rejecting anticipatory bail are set aside. The appellants are directed to be released on bail in the event of arrest in Crime No. 292 of 2018 on furnishing PR bond of Rs. 25,000 each with one surety of like amount, subject to conditions including attendance at police station as required, not tampering with evidence, and not committing similar offences.
Law Points
- Anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC is maintainable despite bar under Section 18 of SC/ST Act if prima facie offence under the Act is not made out
- Allegations of general abuse without caste-based insult do not attract Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST Act
- Section 14-A(2) of SC/ST Act provides for appeal against refusal of anticipatory bail
