Case Note & Summary
The criminal petition was filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking anticipatory bail for the two petitioners who were accused in Crime No.60/2020 registered at Thirumalashettahalli police station for offences under Sections 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The first informant, belonging to a Scheduled Caste, alleged that he had been paying chit amounts to the petitioners who ran a chit business. On 25.06.2020 at about 8.30 p.m., when he went to the petitioners' house to pay the chit amount, the petitioners abused him by taking the name of his caste, insulted him, pulled his hair, pushed him down, kicked him, and threatened to burn all of them as had happened in Kambalpalli. The petitioners contended that the allegations were false and arose out of a dispute over a chit transaction; they argued that no offence under the SC/ST Act was made out because the alleged acts did not take place in public view. The State and the defacto complainant opposed bail, relying on the bar under Sections 18 and 18A of the SC/ST Act against anticipatory bail in cases under that Act, and argued that the petitioners could threaten witnesses if released. The High Court examined the complaint and found that it did not mention the presence of any other person at the time of the alleged abuse; therefore, it could not be said at that stage that the offence was committed within public view. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Prathvi Raj Chouhan v. Union of India, which held that the bar under Sections 18 and 18A does not apply if the complaint does not make out a prima facie case for applicability of the SC/ST Act, the court concluded that the petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was maintainable. Noting that the other offences were not punishable with death or life imprisonment and that the petitioners were willing to cooperate, the court allowed the petition and granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions including personal bonds of Rs.50,000/-, cooperation with investigation, not leaving the jurisdictional limits without permission, and not tampering with evidence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Anticipatory Bail - Bar under Sections 18 and 18A of SC/ST Act - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 438; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Sections 18, 18A - The petition sought anticipatory bail in connection with offences including under the SC/ST Act - The court considered whether the bar on anticipatory bail applies when the complaint does not make out a prima facie case under the SC/ST Act - Held, following Prathvi Raj Chouhan v. Union of India, that if the complaint does not disclose a prima facie case for applicability of the Act, the bar created by Sections 18 and 18A does not apply; the court must scrutinize the police view keeping in mind the realities of life; the petition was held maintainable (Paras 10-12). B) Criminal Law - Offences under SC/ST Act - Requirement of Public View - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) - The complaint alleged that the accused abused the complainant by caste name and intentionally insulted and intimidated him at the accused's residence - The court examined whether the alleged acts occurred in 'public view' - Held, on perusal of the complaint, it did not indicate the presence of any person other than the first informant; therefore, it could not be said at that stage that the offence was committed within public view; the argument of the petitioners' counsel had force (Paras 8-9). C) Criminal Procedure - Grant of Anticipatory Bail - Conditions - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 438 - The other offences alleged were under IPC Sections 323, 504, 506 read with 34, which are not punishable with death or life imprisonment - The petitioners undertook to cooperate with investigation and abide by conditions - Held, in the circumstances, the relief of anticipatory bail could be granted subject to conditions including execution of personal bond, cooperation with investigation, not leaving jurisdictional limits without permission, not tampering with evidence, and the option for the prosecution to seek cancellation in case of breach (Paras 13-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is maintainable in light of the bar under Sections 18 and 18A of the SC/ST Act when the complaint does not prima facie disclose an offence under the Act; whether the alleged caste-based abuse fell within the scope of 'public view' as defined in Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act.
Final Decision
Petition allowed. Petitioners ordered to be admitted to bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.60/2020 of Thirumalashetty police station, subject to conditions: appear before Investigating Officer within 10 days, execute personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with one surety, cooperate with investigation, not leave jurisdictional limits without permission, not tamper with evidence, and with provision for cancellation of bail on breach.
Law Points
- If complaint does not make out a prima facie case for applicability of SC/ST Act
- bar under Sections 18 and 18A does not operate
- anticipatory bail can be granted
- abuse in a private residence without others present does not amount to 'public view' as required under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act
