IMPORTANT POINT
The court clarified that the applicability of the Prevention of Atrocities Act requires specific allegations of caste-based abuse, and the absence of such allegations allows for the granting of anticipatory bail despite the general nature of other charges.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. The present appeal is preferred by the appellant against the order dtd. 16/6/2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Achalpur by which he has rejected the application for grant of anticipatory bail in Criminal Bail Nos.289/2023 and 290/2023.

2. The present appellants are apprehending arrest at the hands of the police as crime is registered against the present appellants on the basis of report lodged by Naresh Dinkarrao Barabde on an allegation that the informant alongwith his friend went to the Chandrabhaga Mata Temple at about 8 pm to observe the auction procedure of agriculture field of various trusts. During the said auction proceedings, there was altercation of words between Ashok Barabde and Nilesh Bonde, and at that time, five persons were driven out. It is further alleged that out of five persons Pavan Barabde and Mayur Barabde abused them on the basis of caste and asked them to leave the hall of the temple. It is further alleged that all the appellants abused them on their caste. On the basis of said report, the police have registered the alleged crime against the present applicants vide Crime No.104/2023 registered with Police Station, Rahimapur, District Amravati for the offences punishable under Ss. 143, 294, 323, 506, 109 of the Indian Penal Code and under Ss. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2) (va) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (For short, "Prevention of Atrocities Act").

3. As per contention of the appellants, there is no allegation against them that they have abused the informant on his caste. The allegations is against the other co-accused. As far as present appellants are concerned, general allegation is that they have pushed them and assaulted them by fist and kick blows. Therefore, the offence under the provisions of Ss. 3(1)(r), 3(i)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Prevention of Atrocities Act is not attracted. As far as the custodial interrogation is concerned, their physical custody is not required as nothing is to be recovered from them and prays for protection by way of anticipatory bail.

4. The said appeal is strongly opposed by the State on the ground that the present appellants in furtherance of their common intention abused the informant on his caste and therefore provisions of Prevention of Atrocities Act are attracted. There is a bar under Sec. 18 of the Prevention of Atrocities Act. Therefore, appeal deserves to be rejected.

5. Learned appointed counsel for the respondent no.2 also submitted that there is specific allegation against the present appellants and therefore bar under Sec. 18 is attracted and appeal deserves to be rejected.

6. Heard learned counsel Shri V.B. Bhise for the appellants. He reiterated the contentions and submitted that as far as the allegation on the caste is concerned, is made against Pavan Barabde and Mayur Barabde. There is general allegation against the present appellants that they pushed the informant and his friend and assaulted them by fist and kick blows. After excluding the provisions of Prevention of Atrocities Act all other offences are bailable one and physical custody of the appellants are not required. As there is no allegation against the present appellants that they abused the informant on his caste the bar under Sec. 18 or 18A is not attracted. Therefore, appeal deserves to be allowed.

7. Learned APP Shri S.M. Ghodeswar for State and learned counsel Shri A.M. Chaudhari for respondent no.2 reiterated the contention and submitted that there is a bar under Sec. 18 of the Prevention of Atrocities Act and therefore appeal deserves to be rejected.

8. Having heard both sides and on perusal of the recitals of the FIR, admittedly, allegation is that the informant and his friend was abused on their caste is against Pavan Barabde and Mayur Barabde. As far as the allegation against the present appellants are concerned, they have assaulted the informant and his friend and pushed them out of the hall. There is no alleg