The main legal point established in the judgment is that the special provisions made in the SC/ST Act to prevent atrocities against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, including the exclusion of Section 438 of the Code in connection with offences under the SC/ST Act, must be given due consideration by the courts.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. Agrawal, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 03.12.2014 passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 25561 of 2014 whereby the High Court granted anticipatory bail to the respondents herein accused of commission of offence under Sections 323, 354 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short `the IPC') and Section 3(1) (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short `the SC/ST Act').

3. Brief facts:

(a) On 04.05.2009, one Manju Devi - the appellant herein-the complainant, filed a complaint being Complaint Case No. 1079C/09 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai under Sections 323, 354 and 452 of `the IPC' and Section 3(1)(xi) of `the SC/ST Act' stating that on the fateful day, i.e., on 18.04.2009, at around 3:00 p.m., the respondents entered into her quarter and caught hold of her in order to outrage her modesty. When the appellant herein somehow managed to come out of their clutches, the respondents abused her and her family members on their caste by calling them `Harijans and Dhobis' and threatened with dire consequences for revealing the said incident outside.

(b) The above complaint resulted into registration of first information report (FIR) being No. 65/09 under Sections 323, 354 and 452 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act in P.S. Sadar, Begusarai.

(c) After investigation, the police filed a closure report in the same. However, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai, being dissatisfied with the report, vide order dated 20.03.2013, took cognizance of the offence and process was issued against the respondents for commission of offence under the aforesaid Sections of the IPC as well as the SC/ST Act.

(d) Aggrieved by the order dated 20.03.2013, the respondents preferred a Criminal Revision being No. 310/2013 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai, vide order dated 14.12.2013, affirmed the order dated 20.03.2013 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai.

(e) The respondents preferred Criminal Miscellaneous No. 12468 of 2014 before the High Court against the order dated 14.12.2013. Learned single Judge of the High Court, vide order dated 25.03.2014, confirmed the order dated 14.12.2013. The respondents further preferred a Criminal Miscellaneous being No. 25561 of 2014 for anticipatory bail. Learned single Judge of the High Court, vide order dated 03.12.2014, granted anticipatory bail to the respondents to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Begusarai.

(f) Being aggrieved by the order dated 03.12.2014, the appellant herein has preferred this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.

4. Heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant herein and Mr. A. Sharan, learned senior counsel for the respondents.

Point for consideration:

5. The only point for consideration before this Court is whether the High Court was justified in granting anticipatory bail to the respondents in the present facts and circumstances of the case?

Rival contentions:

6. Learned counsel for the appellant, by drawing our attention to the relevant materials, namely, the complaint, the statement of the complainant as well as the relevant provisions of the SC/ST Act submitted that the High Court was not justified in granting anticipatory bail to the respondents, particularly, in the light of the factual conclusion arrived at by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai in the order dated 14.12.2013. It was further contended from the side of the appellant that in view of the clear findings on the point, the High Court was not right in granting anticipatory bail to the respondents.

7. Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the allegations against them are false as the appellant was working as maid at the relevant time and was used to settle the