ORDER :

Heard.

1. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.74/2020 registered at Police Station Gole Bazar, Raipur, District Raipur for the offence punishable under Section 294, 324, 506 of the IPC and Section 3(2) (v) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (In short “the Act of 1989”). The applicant had applied for grant of anticipatory bail before the Court below but the Court below rejected bail application of the applicant taking into consideration the bar created under Section 18 of the Act of 1989 and opining that as the allegations against the applicant is of commission of offences not only under IPC but also under Section 3(2)(v)(a) of the Act of 1989, the application is not maintainable. Aggrieved by this rejection order, the applicant has filed this appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant would argue that the learned Court below adopted erroneous approach without taking into consideration the well settled legal position as laid down by the Supreme Court that though ordinarily, there is a bar against entertaining application for grant of anticipatory bail where the accused is alleged to have committed offence under the Act of 1989, in appropriate cases when no prima facie case is made out, in exceptional cases, the benefit of anticipatory bail could be extended. Relying upon decision in the case of Khuman Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2019 SCC Online SC 1104, it is argued that the said decision has settled legal position that a case under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act of 1989 would not be made out, unless it shown that the offence was committed against the person or property for the reason that the victim belonged to reserved category. According to learned counsel for the applicant, the provisions contained in Section 3(2)(v)(a) of the Act of 1989 being pari materia Section 3(2)(v) of the Act of 1989, verdict of the Supreme Court in the case of Khuman Singh (supra), will squarely apply in the present case. He would further submit that even according to allegation of the prosecution, the applicant and the prosecutrix are good friend and the incident happened when the prosecutrix was going for a ride in the vehicle of the applicant and the reason for quarrel was that the accused was raising objection to the prosecutrix meeting with another lady and thereafter, when she was trying to give call to father of the applicant, the accused-applicant misbehaved with the prosecutrix. It is next submitted that if the entire story, as stated in the FIR and the case diary statement, is taken as it is, there is absolutely no element that the applicant gave assault to the prosecutrix because she belonged to the reserved category. Therefore, the registration of offence under Section 3(2)(v)(a) of the Act of 1989 is not at all made out. Hence, in these circumstances, the applicant ought to be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State/non-applicant would submit that in the present case, admittedly, the prosecutrix belonged to reserved category and the applicant and the prosecutrix were friend and when they were going on for a ride in the vehicle of the applicant, the applicant fully knowing that the prosecutrix belonged to reserved category, gave her assault, resulting in injury, therefore, prima facie case under Section 3(2)(v)(a) of the Act of 1989 would definitely made out and that would bar application for grant of anticipatory bail in view of the provisions contained under Section 18 of the Act of 1989.

4. Learned counsel for the complainant would submit that as there is a compromise having taken place between the applicant and the prosecutrix, the prosecutrix would not be opposing the application for grant of anticipatory bail.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, particularly taking into consideration what has stated by the prosecutrix in her written complaint on the basis of which, FIR has been lodg