Back
S.K.AGARWAL
MUKESH KUMAR SAINI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF DELHI – Respondent
What are the basic ingredients of the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act?
Key Points: - Petitioners sought pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC in FIR No. 199/2000 under Sections 324/342/34 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) SC/ST Act (!) . - Complainant alleged petitioners dragged his brother Hanuman into their shop, used caste-based humiliating words, poured kerosene, and injured complainant with glass (!) (!) . - Cross FIR No. 200/2000 registered by petitioners alleging attack by complainant and others, with injuries and theft (!) . - Section 18 SC/ST Act bars anticipatory bail, but courts can scrutinize FIR to check if basic ingredients of offence exist (!) (!) . - Ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) SC/ST Act: intentional insult/intimidation with intent to humiliate SC/ST member by non-SC/ST person, in public view; mens rea and knowledge of victim's caste essential (!) (!) . - Humiliating words uttered inside shop before neighbors arrived, not in public view; cross cases and later addition of SC/ST section indicate no prima facie offence (!) . - Petitioners granted pre-arrest bail on furnishing bonds (!) .
(August 6, 2001) 2001 (TLS)125252
2001-DLT-94-241 :: 2001-AD (Del)-6-12
MUKESH KUMAR SAINI Vs. STATE OF DELHI
S. K. Agarwal
( 1 ) BY this petition u/s. 438 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE) the petitioners are seeking pre-arrest bail in the case FIR No. 199/2000 under sections 324/342/34 indian PENAL CODE read with Section 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled Castes and scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities) Act, 198. 9 (here-in-after SC/st Act ).
( 2 ) ABOVE noted case was registered on 26/4/2000 on the basis of the report lodged by Raj Kumar @# Gattu alleging that he along with his brother Hanuman are running a Mithai shop which is in front of the house of petitioners. At about 8. 30 p. m. electrician came and repaired the electric connection at the DESU Pole-at" Prem Gali electricity to the house of petitioners was restored but the electricity in the rest of the area was not restored. He was asking the electrician as to why he had not restored their electricity, in the meantime, his brother Hanuman also came there from his shop. Petitioners forcibly took him inside their shop saying
"aaj JULAHEY KO DEKH LO YEH SAAlley BAHUT BOLTEY HATN YEH s
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
