The main legal point established is that when there is no prima facie material to show the act in question was caste-based, certain provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities) act, 1989 are not applicable.

JUDGMENT

K.S. Mudagal, J. - Learned High Court Government Pleader submits memo reporting service of notice to respondent No.2. Service of notice to respondent No.2 held sufficient. He is unrepresented.

2. Heard.

3. aggrieved by rejection of her petition for grant of anticipatory bail, the accused in Crime No.331/2021 of Periyapatna police station has preferred the above appeal.

4. On 18.12.2021, respondent No.2 filed the complaint before Periyapatna police against the appellant as per annexure-B alleging that on 17.12.2021 at 7.00 p.m. the appellant had employed scavenger for manually cleaning her toilet pit and that was reported in Vartha Bharathi Kannada daily newspaper. By such act, she has violated Section 6 of the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation act, 2013 ('the act' for short).

5. On that basis, Periyapatna police registered first information report as per annexure-a against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 5, 8 and 9 of the said act. She was arrested in the said case and learned Magistrate released her on bail as per the order annexure-C dated 19.12.2021.

6. On 20.12.2021, the Investigating Officer submitted requisition as per annexure-D to include Section 304(II) of IPC and Section 3(1)(j) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities) act, 1989 ('SC/ST (POa) act' for short). The requisition states that during the course of investigation, on 20.12.2021 he recorded the statement of one Rajesh, a scavenger deployed to attend manual scavenging. The statement further revealed that on the requisition of one Vishwa S/o. Mahadev, himself and one Madhu carried out manual scavenging work and suffered some health hazard. as per his statement, after taking treatment, he recovered and Madhu died in Kamakshipalya Hospital, Mysuru. On such requisition of the Investigating officer, Section 304(II) of IPC and Section 3(1)(j) of the SC/ST (POa) act were included in the case.

7. The appellant apprehending her arrest in the said case filed anticipatory bail petition before the trial Court in Crl.Misc.No.2545/2021. The trial Court by the impugned order annexure-E dated 06.01.2022 dismissed the said petition on the ground that specific overt acts are attracted to the appellant to attract the provision of Section 3(1)(j) of the SC/ST (POa) act and Sections 18 and 18a of the SC/ST (POa) act bar grant of anticipatory bail in such cases.

8. as per the Investigating Officer's requisition itself, victim Rajesh revealed that one Vishwa deployed him and Madhu for manual scavenging. He does not speak the role of the appellant. Up to 20.12.2021 the names of the victims did not find figure in the investigation records. The death has occurred after three days of the alleged deployment for manual scavenging. The copy of the postmortem report made available for the perusal of this Court does not show any final report. The appellant was already arrested and interrogated. Therefore her detention for any further investigation is not required.

9. Under the circumstances, at this stage, there is no prima-facie material to show that the appellant had directly employed the victims for manual scavenging or monitored the same. Vishwa, who allegedly employed victim is not arrayed as the accused in this case. Therefore, at this stage, there is no prima-facie case to hold that the appellant subjected the victims for hazardous activities by way of caste discrimination.

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India (2020) 4 SCC 727 held that when there is no prima-facie material to show that the act in question was caste based, Sections 18 and 18a of the SC/ST (POa) act are not applicable. The major offences alleged under Section 304(II) of IPC is punishable with imprisonment upto 10 years. The appellant is woman and anganwadi worker.

11. Considering all these aspects, it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Therefore the appeal is allowed. The impugned orde