IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that significant delays in filing FIRs, especially when unexplained, can undermine the validity of allegations under the SC ST Act, allowing for the possibility of anticipatory bail.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

V.G.BISHT, J. - Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties and is taken up for final disposal.

3. This criminal appeal is preferred under Sec. 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ( for short, "the SC ST Act") against the order dtd. 16/12/2021 below Exh.1 in Criminal Bail Application No. 1633 of 2021 by learned District Judge-2 and Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik, thereby rejecting the application under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( for short, "the Cr.P.C.") in connection with C.R. No. 567 of 2021 registered with Police Station Dindori, Nashik for alleged offences punishable under Sec. 143, 147, 307, 323, 406, 427, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Ss. 3(1)(r), 3(1(s), 3(2)(5), 3(2)(va) of the SC ST Act.

4. It is the case of the prosecution that the informant's husband is working with Police Department and at the relevant time was posted at Panchvati Police Station, Nashik City. The appellant No.1 wanted to purchase a car and as he was not eligible for loan, the husband of informant agreed and car was purchased in his name and accordingly, loan was obtained. The prosecution alleges that the appellant No.1 failed to pay the instalments which led to harassment by the finance company. This also led to confrontation between the appellants and family members of the informant and it is further alleged that the former damaged the vehicle, tried to burn it somehow and also attempted to burn the respondent No.2.

5. The FIR accordingly came to be registered against the appellants at the instance of informant.

6. Mr. Bankapur, learned Counsel for appellants, apart from narrating the facts submits that the alleged incident took place on 01/05/2020 and FIR for the same is lodged on 08/11/2021 i.e. almost 18 months after the alleged incident and the said inordinate delay is nowhere explained in the FIR. According to learned Counsel, the informant's husband wanted to seize the car in question forcibly and as the appellant No.2 had given the complaint to the Police Commissioner of Nashik, the present complaint keeping a grudge in mind and with malafide intention came to be filed against the appellant. Even otherwise, the complaint does not disclose the commission of offence under SC ST Act and thus keeping in mind this aspect and the material on record, the learned trial Judge had earlier granted the interim protection but later on, on trifle reasons vacated the interim order of protection and rejected the application. The impugned order is absolutely not sustainable, according to learned Counsel.

7. Mrs. Veera Shinde, learned APP, on the other hand, supported the impugned order and would submit that the prosecution has gathered sufficient evidence to show the involvement of accused in the offence. Moreover, according to learned APP, in the light of Sec. 18 and 18A of the SC ST Act, the present appellant do not deserve to be given benefit of anticipatory bail.

8. We have gone through the record with the assistance of learned Counsel for appellants as well as learned APP.

9. We have also perused the order of the learned trial Judge (Exh. B) dtd. 25/11/2021 whereby the interim protection was extended in favour of the appellants mainly on two grounds. Firstly, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was of the opinion that there was delay of 18 months in lodging the FIR and previous N.C. about the incident does not make any allegations with regard to an offence under the Atrocities Act. Secondly, at that stage, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that the FIR appeared to be tainted and therefore, the application was not hit by the bar of Sec. 18 of the Atrocities Act. Further, interestingly after hearing the investigating officer, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, pleased to vacate the interim protection only on the ground that the appellants have made material alterations in