The provisions of the Atrocities Act require insults or intimidation to be on account of the victim belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the Act to apply. The exclusion of provision for anticipatory bail cannot be treated as applicable when no case is made out or allegations are patently false or motivated.

JUDGMENT :

Anil Satyavijay Kilor, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned A.P.P. for the respondent No. 1/State. None for the respondent No. 2, though served.

2. ADMIT.

3. In this appeal order below Exh. 1, dated 13/08/2020 passed by learned Special Judge, Mehkar, District: Buldana in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 144 of 2020, thereby rejecting the application for grant of pre-arrest bail, filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Crime No. 256 of 2020, dated 27/07/2020, registered with Police Station, Janefal, District: Buldana, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 149, 354, 324, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(2), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(u), 3(1)(w), 3(1) (w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Atrocities Act"), is under challenge.

4. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant lodged a complaint on 27/07/2020 stating therein that he had been to Mandva Forest village to get some labour work and returned back at 08:00 a.m.. At that time, he saw his daughter Yamutai standing outside their house and the appellants along with other co-accused persons went towards her. At that time, the appellant Nos. 2 and 3 and co-accused Manikrao Shinde had wooden sticks in their hands. All the accused persons threatened the complainant's daughter and asked her to convey her father i.e. the complainant to return back their land otherwise she would be molested, killed or raped and after altercation, the appellant No. 3 hit Yamutai on her head and the appellant No. 2 and co-accused Manikrao hit his daughter Yamutai on her back with wooden stick. Further, the appellant Nos. 2 and 3 caught hold the hand of his daughter Yamutai and molested her and tore her Kurta. It is alleged that at that time his daughter fainted on the ground. Thereupon, the complainant's daughters, sons and wife rushed to help Yamutai. At that time, the appellant No. 3, along with other accused persons, caught hold complainant's daughter Kiran and repeatedly hit on her face. The appellants, along with other accused persons, assaulted the sons and daughters of the complainant. It is further alleged that the wife of the appellant No. 2-Nanda Baban Shinde hurled casteist insults on the complainant and his family and threatened them with their life.

5. Shri Thakkar, learned counsel for the appellants submits that there are no allegations against the appellants, which would attract the provisions of the Atrocities Act. He submits that the allegation that the complainant and his family was abused on their caste, is against the wife of the appellant No. 2 i.e. Nanda. However, there are no allegations against the appellants that they abused the complainant or his family on their caste. It is further submitted that the dispute arose out of an agricultural land and in the First Information Report (FIR) there are no allegations that the appellants and other accused persons have committed the alleged act because the complainant and victim were of the Scheduled Caste. It is further pointed out that all other accused persons have already been released on bail and the custody of the appellants is not required.

6. Shri Thakkar, learned counsel for the appellants further points out that there was a counter F.I.R. filed by Sumitra Pramod Shinde against the complainant and his family and the said F.I.R. was registered as Crime No. 257 of 2020 on 27/07/2020 with Police Station Janefal, District: Buldana for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 149, 354, 324, 323, 294, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

7. He, therefore, prays that the ad-interim protection granted by this Court, vide order dated 21/08/2020 may be confirmed in view of the fact that the appellants attended the Police Station as directed by this Court and there is no complaint of misuse of liberty.

8. On the other hand,