The main legal point established in the judgment is that the application for anticipatory bail under the SC ST Act can be entertained if the allegations in the FIR do not prima facie make out the basic ingredients of the offences alleged to have been committed.

JUDGEMENT :

1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties.

2. In this appeal filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “SC ST Act”) challenge is to the order dated 09.06.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Link-Court, Mangrulpir, Washim, whereby the learned Judge rejected the application made by the appellants for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.).

3. The facts leading to the appeal may be stated in brief:

On the report of the respondent No.2-Ganesh Ambore (the informant), the crime bearing No. 229 of 2022 came to be registered against the appellants for the offences punishable under Section 323, 324, 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the SC ST Act. The appellants and respondent No.2 are neighbours. On 28.04.2022, the incident in question occurred at about 12:15 p.m. On that day the work of construction of the house of the respondent No.2 was in progress. The appellants at that time started digging the holes for fixing the wooden poles for erecting a compound to their house. The respondent No.2 objected for the same. Therefore, the quarrel took place between them. The appellants according to the prosecution assaulted the respondent No.2 and his family members by means of wooden stick. The respondent No.2 sustained injuries. The respondent No.2 belongs to Scheduled Tribe category. It is stated that the appellants abused the respondent No.2 and his family members in filthy language. They also abused respondent No.2 and his family members in the name of their caste. On the basis of the report of the respondent No.2, the crime bearing No. 229 of 2022 came to be registered.

4. The appellants, apprehending the arrest in the crime, applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the said application.

5. The learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that perusal of the FIR would show that no offence under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the SC ST Act has been made out. The learned Advocate submitted that the appellants have been falsely implicated in this crime by invoking the stringent provisions of the SC ST Act. The learned Advocate pointed out that remaining offences registered against the appellants are bailable. The learned Advocate further submitted that considering the nature of the allegations and the nature of the incident, custodial interrogation of the appellants is not necessary. The learned Advocate submitted that since the FIR does not disclose the commission of the offence under the SC ST Act, a bar provided under Sections 18 and 18-A of the SC ST Act would not get attracted in this case. In order to substantiate his submission, the learned Advocate relied upon the following reported decisions.

i] Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another, (2020) 10 SCC 710

ii] Kiran s/o Madhukar Ingle Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another , 2019 ALL MR (Cri) 2825

iii] Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs. Union of India and others, (2020) 4 SCC 727.

6. The learned APP submitted that no case has been made out by the appellants to grant them anticipatory bail. The learned APP submitted that the learned Additional Session Judge has recorded the reasons for rejecting the application. The learned APP submitted that in view of the reasons recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the appeal filed by the appellants deserves to be dismissed.

7. The learned Advocate representing the respondent No.2 and assisting the learned APP submitted that in view of the mandate of Section 18 of the SC ST Act, the application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. The learned Advocate submitted that on the basis of the facts stated in the FIR, the offences under the SC ST Act have been made out. The learned Advocate in support of