IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized that the fact of taking cognizance or filing of a charge sheet is not by itself a bar against the grant of anticipatory bail, and insults or intimidations to a person will not be an offence under the SC/ST (PoA) Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of the victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is directed against the order dated 9.2.24 passed by the Court of LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru, whereby Crl.Misc.No.686/24 preferred by the appellants herein under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

2. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record.

3. Respondent No.2/complainant filed a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. on the file of the Court of City Civil and Sessions Court (Special Court) at Bengaluru, against the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 alleging commission of offences under Section 504, 506, 153(A), 109, 500, 501 and 120B r/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(i)(x) of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘SC/ST (PoA) Act’). The learned Sessions Judge referred the matter to ACP, Kengeri Gate Sub-Division, Bengaluru, for investigation.

Upon conducting the investigation, a ‘B’ report was submitted. The complainant filed a protest petition. The learned Sessions Judge, by an order dated 10.10.2023, proceeded to take cognizance of the offences alleged and issued summons to the accused. Further, by an order dated 28.11.2023, issued NBW to the accused.

4. The learned Sessions Judge, while rejecting the petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., has observed that in the present case already cognizance has been taken by the Court, under such circumstances, anticipatory bail of the accused cannot be considered.

5. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants has pressed into service the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2003) 8 SCC 77 in the case of ‘Bharat Chaudhary and anr. v. State of Bihar and anr.’ to contend that the mere fact of taking cognizance or filing of charge sheet is not by itself a bar against grant of anticipatory bail. He contended that the police on a thorough investigation has filed a ‘B’ report concluding that the entire allegations are baseless and the learned Sessions Judge initially issued summons on the protest petition, however, in spite of non-payment of process fee to issue summons, proceeded to issue NBW against the accused. He contended that the entire allegations made against the appellants are false and frivolous and the complainant is in the habit of filing false complaints. He contended that the ingredients of the offences alleged against the appellants are not made out and there is no prima facie case attracting the provisions of the SC/ST (PoA) Act.

6. The respondent No.2/complainant has filed statement of objections. He would contend that the appellants are very well aware of his caste and under Section 8(c) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, if the accused is having personal knowledge of the victim or his family, the Court shall presume that the accused was aware of the caste or tribal identity of the victim. He contended that he being a member of the Scheduled Caste and a resident of Flat No.404 of one Kailash Apartment has been deprived of his legal and fundamental rights by the appellants, on the ground that he is a member of the Scheduled Caste. It is his contention that the jurisdictional police have failed to register a case against the accused and as no action was taken in spite of filing complaints to the higher officers, he filed a private complaint, but the police conducted a tainted investigation and filed a false ‘B’ report. He further contended that on his protest petition the learned Sessions Judge has taken cognizance of the offences under IPC as well as under the SC/ST Act and therefore, there is a prima facie case made out against the appellants.

7. In the private complaint filed by respondent No.2 he has alleged that the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 have committed offences under Section 504, 506, 153(A), 109, 500, 501 and 120B r/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(i)(x) of SC/ST (PoA) Act.

8. It is averred in the complaint that the complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste (Adi Karnataka) and he has been residing in Flat No.404, B-8 of