The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for prima facie evidence and the careful consideration of allegations, especially in cases involving the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard both sides.

2. Since arguable points are made, the appeals are admitted.

3. By consent the appeals are taken up for final disposal.

4. Both these appeals have been filed by the original accused in Crime No.03 of 2020 dated 08-01-2020, registered with Mahur Police Station District Nanded for the offences punishable under Section 143, 147, 148, 149, 506 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(3), 3(1)(s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 on the basis of the First Information Report lodged by present respondent No.2. These appeals have been filed as per the provisions of Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

5. The application filed by the appellants in both the appeals i.e. Bail Application No.42 of 2020 which was filed collectively by the appellants for the grant of pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been rejected by the learned Special Judge/ Additional Sessions Judge-2, Nanded on 21-01-2020.

6. The appellants / original applicants were apprehending their arrest in the said crime and, therefore, they had filed the said application contending that the informant i.e. present respondent No.2 who is resident of Datta Nagar, Mahur Tq. Mahur Dist. Nanded has filed the said First Information Report in order to harass them. He was indulged in making complaints in respect of allotment of sand spot to the revenue authorities for ulterior purpose with an assertion that the sand has been sold at a exorbitant rate. The informant had made unfounded and frivolous complaints to achieve ulterior objects and initially approached the police on 03-12-2019 with an allegation regarding unauthorized excavation. It was also alleged that, the appellants had assaulted, abused and threatened him. Police started inquiry and statements of witnesses were recorded. However, in the wake of the statements of the witnesses, even the informant was called and CCTV footage of the S. T. Stand, where the alleged spot was, was also collected by the investigating officer. In that inquiry it is revealed that, no such incident had taken place and ultimately the informant had withdrawn the complaint by giving a specific statement to that effect on 10-12-2019. However, at the behest of police, a settlement was arrived at and it was agreed that 18 brass of sand would be supplied to the informant by the appellants and the informant would pay amount of Rs.2,000/- per brass. The sand was accordingly supplied by the appellants however he did not pay the due amount i.e. Rs.36,000/- and in order to avoid payment of the price of the said sand, he lodged report on the basis of some concocted story, which then came to be registered on 08-01-2020 as Crime No.03 of 2020. In fact on the day of incident the informant himself had snatched amount of Rs.3000/- from appellant Pratik Kopulwar and had given threat of initiating prosecution under Atrocities Act for which Pratik Kopulwar has lodged offence punishable under Section 341, 392, 384, 336, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code with Mahur Police Station vide Crime No.04 of 2020. When the appellants had approached the Special Judge under the Atrocities Act for pre-arrest bail; the Special Judge did not consider the facts of the case and earlier record. Their bail application has been casually rejected holding that, prima facie case has been made out and, therefore, the application itself is barred under Section 18 of the Atrocities Act. They have, therefore, prayed for allowing the appeal.

7. Respondent No.2 has filed affidavit-in-reply and denied all the allegations against him. It has been contended that, he is one of the persons who assesses about the illegal excavation of sand from river Painganga bed at the hands of the appellants. He had raised that issue before the revenue authorities time and again, and the revenue officers had directed several times to the subordinate officers