The ingredients of the offence under S. 3(1)(r) of the S.Cs. & S.Ts. (PoA) Act are (1) intentionally insults or intimidates with interest to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and (2) in any place within public view.

Headnote:
ANTICIPATORY BAIL - S.Cs. & S.Ts. (PoA) ACT - SS. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) - PUBLIC VIEW - INTENTION TO HUMILIATE - MAINTAINABILITY OF BAIL APPLICATION - S. 18 - INTERPRETATION - HELD, OFFENCES UNDER S.Cs. & S.Ts. (PoA) ACT NOT ATTRACTED - BAIL GRANTED.
Fact of the Case:

Petitioners sought anticipatory bail in a case registered against them under Ss. 323, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Ss. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners abused and assaulted the de facto complainant, a member of a Scheduled Caste, in a graveyard.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the alleged offence did not take place in public view and that there was no intention on the part of the petitioners to insult or humiliate the de facto complainant. Therefore, the court held that the offences under the S.Cs. & S.Ts. (PoA) Act were not attracted.
Issues: 1. Whether the offences under the S.Cs. & S.Ts. (PoA) Act were attracted in the present case. 2. Whether the anticipatory bail application was maintainable in light of the bar under S. 18 of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Supreme Court decisions in Rithesh Pais vs. State of Karnataka and Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India to hold that the offences under the S.Cs. & S.Ts. (PoA) Act were not attracted in the present case as the alleged offence did not take place in public view and there was no intention on the part of the petitioners to insult or humiliate the de facto complainant. The court also held that the anticipatory bail application was maintainable as the bar under S. 18 of the Act did not apply since the complaint did not make out a prima facie case for the applicability of the provisions of the Act.
Final Decision: The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to certain conditions.

JUDGMENT

1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( for short, 'Cr.P.C.'), seeking anticipatory bail, by the petitioners/A-1 and A-2 in Cr.No.177 of 2022 of Irla Police Station, Chittoor District, registered for the offence punishable under Ss. 323, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Ss. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, on 3/9/2022 at about 3.30 p.m., while he was sitting on the sand floor inside the grave yard near his house, the petitioners/ A1 and A2 came there, abused him touching name of his caste and they dragged and hit him on the ear and the 2nd petitioner/A-2 hit on his back and threw him down and they both humiliated him stating that how dare he not to stand on their arrival.

The complaint of the de facto complainant is registered as the above crime.

3. Heard Sri Javvaji Sarath Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Sravan Kumar Naidana, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for 1 st respondent-State.

4. The learned Special Assistant Government Pleader has placed on record the notice served on the 2 nd respondent-de facto complainant in compliance of the requirement under Sec. 15 A (3)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. However, he did not choose to enter his appearance.

5. Sri Javvaji Sarath Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that the petitioners are innocent of the offence and they were falsely implicated in this case and even if the contents of the FIR are taken into consideration at their face value, they do not attract any of the offence punishable under S.Cs. & S.Ts. (PoA) Act, since the offence did not take place in public view and further the allegations made against the petitioners are omnibus in nature.

The learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the contents of the FIR do not disclose any intention on the part of the petitioners to insult, humiliate or intimidate the de facto complainant.

The learned counsel would further submit that dehors the offences under Ss. S.Cs.&S.Ts. (PoA) Act, the other offence is bailable and triable by Magistrate of First Class.

The learned counsel would further submit that the petitioners are law abiding citizens with no criminal antecedents and if the petitioners are arrested their families will deprive of their livelihood and they would be put to starvation.

The learned counsel would further submit that substantial part of the investigation has already been completed and the petitioners will abide by any conditions imposed by this Court and that they would make themselves available to the Investigating Officer and cooperate for investigation.

On the above contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioners sought pre arrest bail to the petitioners and prayed to allow the petition.

6. On the other hand, Sri Sravan Kumar Naidana, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor, would submit that the contents of the FIR make out the offences with which the accused are charged including S.Cs. & S.Ts. (PoA) Act and thus this petition filed for grant of pre arrest bail is not maintainable, as the same is barred by Sec. 18 of the Act and the instant petition is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone.

The learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor would further submit that the investigation is in process and if the petitioners are granted pre arrest bail, they will tamper the prosecution evidence and they may not cooperate with the process of investigation. On the above contentions, the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed pre arrest bail to the petitioners and prayed to dismiss this petition.

7. In reply to the contention of the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor in relation to maintainability of pre arrest bail application, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document