IMPORTANT POINT
On facts, false complaint has been made by the complainant; and thereafter again FIR has been lodged under the offence of SC/ST Act, in these circumstances, without commenting on merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the appellant can be granted anticipatory bail.

JUDGMENT

Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J.—The accused/appellant has filed this appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the “SC/ST Act”) for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 01/2022 registered at Police Station Ajak, District Mungeli for the offence punishable under Sections 3(1)(r), (s) of the SC/ST Act.

2. In brief, prosecution case is that when the complainant has gone to Choice Center for getting his Ayushman Card at that time present applicant and other villagers were also present adjacent to the tailor shop, there some altercation took place with present applicant and the appellant abused the complainant in the name of his caste therefore, the complainant lodged the FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has been falsely implicated in the case. It is submitted that police after due investigation earlier has closed the report. He has also annexed letter dated 11.01.2022 obtained through RTI, Office of SP, Mungeli which was sent to Superintendent of Police, District Mungeli by SHO, PS Lalpur, District Mungeli, forwarded though SDOP, Lormi, in which it is stated that the false complaint has been made due to some previous election dispute and enmity. It is further submitted that the appellant is reputed person and he is ready to abide by all direction and conditions imposed on him, if this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel and counsel for the objector opposes the prayer for bail. Learned counsel for the objector puts forth his vehement opposition to the prayer for bail and submits that there is bar under Section 18 and 18-A of the SC/ST Act therefore, appellants anticipatory bail is liable to be rejected.

5. Countering the said submission, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the incident was took place very suddenly only because of some altercation and nothing caste based atrocity has been done by the appellant. Only because the complainant belongs to particular caste, he misused the law to implicate the appellant therefore, on such score is not attracted. He referred to the judgment passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India v. State of Maharashtra, (2020) 4 SCC 761, wherein, it has been held in para 7 as under:—

“7. Section 18 of the 1989 Act has been enacted to take care of an inherent deterrence and to instil a sense of protection amongst the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It is submitted that any dilution of the same would shake the very objective of the mechanism to prevent the offences of atrocities. The directions issued would cause a miscarriage of justice even in deserving cases. With a view to object apprehended misuse of the law, no such direction can be issued. In case there is no prima facie case made out under the 1989 Act, anticipatory bail can be granted. The same was granted in the case in question also.”

6. Having heard rival submission of learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the earlier investigation report dated 11.01.2022 sent to SP, District Mungeli duly forwarded by SDOP, Lormi in which it has been clearly opined that a false complaint has been made by the complainant; and thereafter again FIR has been lodged under the offence of SC/ST Act, in these circumstances, without commenting on merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the appellant can be granted anticipatory bail.

7. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the appellant, on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:—

(a) he shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required,

(b) he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or