Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a judgment of the trial court rejecting anticipatory bail to the three appellants, who were employees of the Government Printing Press at Wai, Satara. They were accused in Crime No. 300 of 2017 registered at Police Station Wai for offences under Sections 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(1)(za), 3(2)(5A) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955. The FIR was lodged on 3 November 2017 by respondent no. 2, Atul Aananda Jekate, a Binder in the same press belonging to a scheduled caste. The first informant alleged that the appellants, due to a grudge arising out of an earlier complaint by a co-employee in 2015, subjected him to casteist abuses, threats, and physical assault. Specific incidents of 11 January 2017 were cited, where appellant no. 1, a watchman, allegedly stopped and checked his bag, pushed him, and hurled caste-based slurs. The informant also claimed that the appellants prevented him from drinking water and threatened him with transfer and false implication. The appellants contended that the FIR was false and motivated. They pointed out that immediately after the incident on 11 January 2017, the informant complained to the manager, but that complaint only mentioned pushes and threats, not casteist abuse. Thereafter, appellant no. 1 filed a cross-complaint leading to a departmental enquiry against the informant. In that enquiry, the informant's statement did not allege casteist abuse, and the management witnesses did not support such allegations. The appellants argued that the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act for anticipatory bail should not operate when the case is patently false. The respondents opposed the appeal, claiming no delay in the FIR and emphasizing the past conduct of the appellants. The court, relying on the Supreme Court decision in Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra, held that the bar under Section 18 is not absolute and can be lifted when allegations are prima facie false or motivated. On examining the evidence, the court found that the contemporaneous complaint and the departmental enquiry proceedings did not reveal any casteist abuse, indicating that the FIR allegations were an afterthought. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the appellants were granted anticipatory bail, with the court holding that the case fell within the exception to Section 18 as recognized by the Supreme Court.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Anticipatory Bail - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 18 - Exclusion of Anticipatory Bail Not Absolute - Bar under Section 18 does not apply when allegations are patently false or motivated and no prima facie case is made out; relying on Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra, grant of anticipatory bail is permissible upon judicial scrutiny of complaint - In the present case, the contemporaneous complaint made by the first informant to the manager on the day of the incident did not mention any casteist abuse, and the departmental enquiry against the first informant did not reveal such abuses, indicating that the allegations under the SC/ST Act were prima facie false and motivated - Held that the appellants are entitled to anticipatory bail (Paras 9-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the bar under Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for grant of anticipatory bail is applicable when the allegations under the Act appear to be prima facie false and motivated, and whether the appellants are entitled to anticipatory bail.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; appellants granted anticipatory bail under conditions; held that bar under Section 18 not applicable as allegations under SC/ST Act were prima facie false and motivated.
Law Points
- Bar under Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
- 1989 is not absolute when allegations are patently false or motivated
- Anticipatory bail can be granted if no prima facie case is made out
- Judicial scrutiny of complaint allowed to ascertain false implication
- Preliminary enquiry may be conducted by DSP to determine if case is made out under Atrocities Act
- Public servant can be arrested only after approval of appointing authority
