The main legal point established is the need for discretion in considering bail applications under the Atrocities Act and the requirement to segregate the acts of each accused before concluding their case under the Act.

JUDGMENT

VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. - Present appeal has been filed under Sec. 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribunes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "Atrocities Act") challenging the rejection of the Bail Application Nos.346 of 2022 and 350 of 2022 filed by the appellants under Sec. 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), by learned Special Judge under the Atrocities Act Majalgaon, District Beed on 12/10/2022.

2. Admit.

3. Respondent No.2 is the informant, who had lodged Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.19 of 2021 for sending the complaint under Sec. 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for investigation before the learned Special Judge under the Atrocities Act, Majalgaon, District Beed. It came to be allowed on 19/9/2022 and the Incharge of Police Station Dindrud, Majalgaon, District Beed, was directed to investigate the matter and thereupon FIR vide Crime No.176 of 2022 came to be registered with the said Police Station for the offence punishable under Ss. 141, 147, 148, 149, 307, 324, 323, 506 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Ss. 3(1)(r) (s), 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of the Atrocities Act.

4. Heard Mr.S.J.Salunke, learned Advocate for the appellants, Ms.V.S.Choudhary, learned APP for respondent No.1 and Ms.Sunita G.Sonawane, learned Advocate for respondent No.2.

5. It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the appellants that FIR is nothing but the outcome of political rivalry. There is huge delay in lodging the report. The incident had allegedly taken place on 31/7/2021 and FIR has been lodged on 22/9/2022. Police Head Constable - Ganesh Rathod attached to Dindrud Police Station had lodged Crime No.162 of 2021 on the same day for the offence punishable under Ss. 353, 332, 143, 147, 148, 149, 188, 269, 270 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Ss. 51(b) of Disaster Management Act, 2005 and other Ss. against 22 persons, which included the applicants as well as the informant. It is then stated that when the Police got information about dispute between two groups of people, the Police tried to intervene but the Police persons were also assaulted and abused by accused persons and they have received injuries. In connection with the said offence, the informant was arrested and was produced before the Magistrate on 1/8/2021. The complaint filed by him discloses that he was released on bail in that matter on 20/8/2021. Inspite of these facts coming before the Court, it has been considered by learned Special Judge that there was delay in lodging the FIR and another fact, which was not considered at all, is that the informant had already lodged another offence in the past under the Atrocities Act itself against accused No.1. It shows that the informant is misusing the benefit under the Atrocities Act and therefore, by relying upon the decision in Pravin s/o. Shrimant Bhutekar vs. State of Maharashtra and Another reported in 2010 ALL MR (Cri) 1223, it has been submitted on behalf of the appellants that in cases of political touch to the complaint, even though there is bar under Sec. 18 of Atrocities Act, exception will have to be carved out and such cases should be considered as fit to exercise discretion under Sec. 438 of Cr.P.C. It has been submitted that the learned Special Judge, while rejecting the applications, has not considered the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan vs. Union of India reported in (2020) 4 SCC 727 in its proper perspective. So also other decisions, which were produced before the concerned Judge, were not considered and applications were rejected holding that they are barred under Ss. 18 and 18A of the Atrocities Act. The said orders deserve to be set aside.

6. Per contra learned APP for respondent No.1 as well as learned Advocate appearing for respondent No.2 strongly opposed the appeal and supported the reasons given by the learned Special Judge while rejecting the application. Though both have canvassed that the applications before the learned Special Judge by p