SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J.

( 1 ) THESE are the two bail applications filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants, who are apprehending their arrest in connection with crime No. 195/2006, registered at Police station-Dipka, District-Korba (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 342, 294, 323 and 506-B read with Section 34 of the 1pc and Section 3 (l) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the 'special Act' ).

( 2 ) THE brief facts are that the complainant namely-Juiious Lakra was a Security Guard under a private agency known as 'thunderbolt security Services Camp Gevra, District-Korba'. The applicants were also working in the same concern. The victim was working in the said concern since 16. 6. 2004. On 3. 10. 2006, at about 8. 30 a. m. , the victim was called by the applicant-Pushpendra Singh, who said to him that now his services are no more required and he should take up his salary cheque and should leave the job. On this, the victim replied that he should be given his payment in cash. The allegations are that on account of this, the applicants assaulted the deceased with hands and fists. They assaulted the victim in the barrack and while assaulting him, they abused him. They used the following words: "tjo-frepr ^t dnft^i^t BT^t {^fflpt qildl t"''

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the applicants argues that all the offences under the I. P. C. are bailable offences and in the facts and circumstances of the case, an offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Special Act would not be made out; therefore, the applicants may be admitted to anticipatory bail.

( 4 ) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail applications. His submission is that since an offence under Section 3 (l) (x) of the Special Act has been registered, bar under Section 18 of the Special Act would be attracted and these petitions filed for anticipatory bail would not be maintainable.

( 5 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the case diary.

( 6 ) SO far as maintainability of the petitions is concerned, it has been held in many cases that if the contents of the F. I. R. or the complainant disclose the commission of offence under the Special Act, the Courts would not be justified in entering into a further enquiry by summoning the case diary or any other material as to whether the allegations are true or false or whether there is any preponderance of probability for commission of such an offence. At this stage, the Court cannot examine and scrutinize the record of the case in order to ascertain the veracity of the FIR/complaint. The provisions of Section 18 of the Act, 1989 put a complete bar against the entertainment of an application for anticipatory bail where prima facie the contents of the FIR disclose the ingredients of the commission of the offence under the Act of 1989 which is apparent from the perusal of the Section itself and thus the court at the most would be required to evaluate the FIR itself with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of the ingredients constituting the alleged offence, then the Court would not be justified in entering into an enquiry as to the reliability or a genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint.

( 7 ) ON many occasions, it has come before this Court that in the matter of commission of offences punishable under Section 294 etc. of the Indian Penal Code, in a place within public view, if the victim, by chance, happens to be the member of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled tribes, and the accused (s) is not the member of the said castes or tribes, the provisions of section 3 (l) (x) of the Special Act are being utilized by the State, irrespective of the nature of accusation.

( 8 ) IF we read the provisions of Section 3 (l) (x) of the Act, it would b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document