The judgment established the need for a prima facie case under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and emphasized caution in granting anticipatory bail under the Act.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The present appeal is filed challenging the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Amravati dtd. 23/08/2022 by which application for grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.497/2022 for the offences punishable under Ss. 447, 448, 451, 453, 120-B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Ss. 3(1)(g), 3(1)(q), 3(1)(za)(e) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 registered at Police Station Rajapeth, Amravati came to be rejected.

3. The appellants herein are husband and wife. The appellant no.2 is the science graduate and a qualified pharmacist. As he suffered from brain hemorrhage followed by Epileptic attack in the year 2009, he is not actively involved in work due to physical disability and is under treatment of neurologist. The appellant no.1 is post-graduate in MSW (Master of Social Work), M.Lib. (Master of Library and Information Science). She has been lecturer in Jijamatanagar, Chandur Bazar, Amravati and also at Amravati University. The informant is a former tenant of appellant no.1 and 2 and he also a Director of Ramchandra Health Care LLP Hospital, Amravati. There are civil litigation between appellant no.1 and 2 and the informant on the count of payment of rent.

4. On 25/11/2016, respondent no.2 filed a criminal complaint against the appellant no.1 and 2 wherein First Information Report came to be registered vide Crime No.925/2016 for the offences punishable under Sec. 294 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 3 (1) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The appellant had approached the learned Trial Court seeking anticipatory bail vide Criminal Application No.1042/2016. The learned Trial Court was pleased to grant anticipatory bail by its order dtd. 05/12/2016 by holding that the dispute between respondent no.2 and appellant nos.1 and 2 is of civil nature. The respondent no.2 challenged the said order by filing an application before the High Court seeking cancellation of bail. This Court was pleased to allow the said application to withdraw by its order dtd. 13/06/2017.

5. Again on 14/08/2018 another complaint came to be lodged by respondent no.2 and First Information Report came to be registered vide Crime No.590/2018 under Ss. 294 and 448 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 3(1)(4) and 3(1) (5) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 brother of appellant no.1 namely Kishor Bhamburkar was also roped by the resondent no.2. The matter was investigated by the Assistant Commissioner of Police and after the detailed inquiry, the investigating officer concluded that the matter is a civil dispute between the parties and that no offence is made out against appellant no.1 and 2. Hence, B-Summary came to be filed before the learned Special Court, Amravati. The copy of BSummary placed on record by the appellants.

6. After these two attempts, the respondent no.2 again on 18/06/2022 lodged the complaint with the same police station against the present appellants along with co-accused Suchitra Mahadevrao Barve and Subodh Yashwant Dhule and also against Superintendent of State Excise Department. On the basis of said complaint, First Information Report came to be registered vide Crime No.497/2022 for the offences punishable under Ss. 447, 448 451, 453, 120-B read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 3(1) (g), 3(1) (q), 3(1)(l) (za) (e) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

7. It is alleged that the appellant with common intention illegally dispossessed the respondent no.2 from the rented premises owned by appellant nos. 1 and 2 by using force and by breaking lock of the respondent no.2 and by putting their own lock. It is further alleged that the appellants did not allow the respondent no.2 to enter the said premises. It is also alleged that appellant nos.1 and 2