JUDGMENT :

Vinay Joshi, J.

1. Hearing was conducted through Video Conferencing and the learned counsel agreed that the audio and visual quality was proper.

2. Heard.

3. Admit.

4. Rejection of pre-arrest bail of applicants has occasioned them to approach this Court under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Both applicants were apprehending to be arrested in Crime No. 107/2020 relating to the offence punishable under Sections 354-A, 363, 366, 376(2)(n), 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(w)(i)(ii), 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(5), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The applicants have approached to the Special Court in terms of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for pre-arrest protection, however it was rejected by the Special Court.

5. The learned counsel for the applicants argued that registration of crime itself is an attempt of blackmailing at the hands of informant. There is no evidence to connect the applicants with crime. It is submitted that the applicants have not committed any offence nor there is sufficient material to disclose their complexity. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed to grant pre-arrest protection.

6. At the instance of report dated 04.03.2020 lodged by the victim lady aged 25 years, the offence was registered against in all ten persons for aforesaid offences. It is victim's contention that she was serving in the Pharma Company as Merchandiser. Applicant No. 1, Milind was Managing Director of the said Company. The applicant No. 1 misused his position and had sexually abused the victim. The victim stated that on several occasions, applicant No. 1 Milind was passing sexual coloured remarks to the victim and asking sexual favours. Time to time, applicant No. 1, Milind with the aid of co-accused had threatened victim lady and had physical relationship with her. He has also promised to marry and accordingly executed document. The victim alleged that applicant No. 2, Sunita @ Lalita who is mother of applicant No. 1, Milind has also threatened her and abused in the name of her caste.

7. It is informed that besides present applicants, rest of the co-accused have obtained pre-arrest protection. While deciding bail application No. 90/2020, the Special Judge has refused to grant bail to existing applicants, however granted pre-arrest protection to some co-accused.

8. On perusal of Police report, it is revealed that thought the victim was major, applicant No. 1, Milind was Managing Director of the Company meaning thereby, was in dominant position. The victim did not state specific date of incident, however repeatedly stated about the place of occurrence and as to how applicant No. 1, Milind had sexual relation with her by putting her under threat. She has narrated in detail as to how applicant No. 1, Milind was abusing his position and sexually exploiting her who was his employee. In the circumstances, unless custodial interrogation is made regarding applicant No. 1, Milind, there would be no effective investigation. So far as applicant No. 2 is concerned, she is mother of applicant No. 1, Milind. Obviously, the allegation against the applicant No. 2 are of secondary nature. Victim alleged that applicant No. 2 has prevented victim from attending office and had abused her in the name of caste. The victim has not stated actual words by which she was abused in the name of caste. The ingredients of offence punishable under Sections 3(1)(w)(i) (ii), 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2) (5), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act have not made out on prima-facie basis. Applicant No. 2 being lady, there is no need of her custodial interrogation.

9. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in view of specific allegations levelled against applicant No. 1, he is not entitled for pre-arrest p