The main legal point established is that anticipatory bail can be granted in cases under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, if the complaint is found to be false, vexatious, or lacking essential ingredients of the offence, and if it stems from ulterior motives.

L.C. Bhadoo, J.

1. The accused/applicant has preferred this application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C, apprehending arrest in Crime No. 88/2003, Police Station, Surajpur, District Sarguja, of the offence punishable under Sections 294 and 506 of the IPC and Section, 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for releasing him on anticipatory bail before arrest.

2. The prosecution case is that on 27-4-2003 Naib Tehsildar had convened a meeting of villagers in the primary school of the Village Gaitera with regard to settlement of disputes of the claimants whose land was acquired for South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., and in that meeting the complainant and other persons were present, Naib Tehsildar H.S. Dhurve, Up Tehsil Lakhanpur was also present. At about 3 p.m. accused Somesh Das Bangali arrived at that place in his car. On seeing him, complainant Kalicharan greeted him. Accused Somesh Das Bangali started abusing him with the filthy language and said that you do not deserve to greet me and abused him that "Madarchod Bhosadiwale GondAdivasi" how your are creating hurdles in their work, you will be killed. On hearing this, all the persons who were sitting on the spot felt it bad and they did not took it in a good taste. Being aggrieved by the behaviour of the accused Kalicharan lodged a complaint in the Police Station, Surajpur. A case was registered under Sections 294 and 506 of the IPC and Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the matter is still under investigation.

3. I have heard Shri S.C. Dutt, Senior Advocate for the accused/appellant and Shri Pravin Das, Panel Lawyer for the State.

4. Mr. Dutt argued that it is not disputed that the agricultural land of the Village Gaitera was acquired for the mining purposes for South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., and compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,31,960/- was paid to the complainant. Compensation to Devcharan and other villagers was also paid, as per the agreement grand son of Kalicharan, Bhagat Singh was given employment. Similarly, son of Devcharan, Amrit Singh was also given employment and Kripal Singh son of Arjun Singh was also given employment. But, even then the complainant was not satisfied and he was asking for other employment which was not possible. Therefore, this false complaint has been lodged against the accused/applicant, who is very senior officer of the South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., it can not be believed that such a senior officer would use such filthy language and abuse the complainant by calling him in the name of caste. He further argued that the report itself was lodged on 11th May, 2003, i.e., after 14 days of the incident which itself shows that the complaint is false and in this complaint itself it has been written that on account of compromise talks which were going on, the same was delayed. He further argued that on 2nd July, 2003, the complainant himself made an application before the Station House Officer, Surajpur with a copy to Police Station Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, Ambikapur to the effect that he made the complaint on account of anger because the sufficient compensation was not paid to them and now they have compromised the matter and he does not want to pursue the matter. He further argued that moreover by using the word "Madarchod Bhosadiwale Gond Adivasi "prima facie the offence is not made out, therefore, the accused/applicant is entitled for bail under Section 438 of the Cr.PC. He further argued that as the villagers were not allowing for mining activities to the persons of SECL, therefore, officers of SECL made complaints on 7-11-2002 and 7-5-2003 to the S.H.O., Surajpur.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Das, Panel Lawyer opposed the bail application and submits that as per the provisions of Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') anticipatory bail