Point of Law: Bar will not apply where the complaint does not make out “a prima facie case” for the applicability of the provisions of the Act. A statutory exclusion of the right to access remedies for bail is construed strictly, for a purpose

ORDER :

[1] Heard Mr.F.B.Brahmbhatt, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Ms. Krina Calla, learned APP for the respondent State and Mr.Anvesh Vyas, learned counsel for respondent No.2 – original complainant.

[2] By this appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the Atrocities Act” for short), the appellants have challenged the order dated 11.02.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.40 of 2020 by learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge Banaskantha at Deodar, the application filed by the appellants seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C in the event of their arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R.No.11195045200007 of 2020, registered at Suigam Police Station, Dist. Banaskantha, for the offence punishable under Sections 306 & 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act, has been dismissed.

[3] The appellants are accused in C.R.No.11195045200007 of 2020, registered at Suigam Police Station, Dist. Banaskantha, for the offence punishable under Sections 306 & 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act.

[4] The prosecution allegation is that the appellants have abetted alleged act of suicide committed by deceased-Ramesh at his village by hanging himself with Banyan tree, who happened to be a brother of the informant. The deceased belongs to the member of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, accordingly the provisions of Atrocities Act have been invoked. After investigation, the alleged offences as referred to above against the present appellants have been registered. Thus, the appellants apprehend their arrest in the alleged crime.

[5] It is the submission of Mr.F.B.Brambhatt, learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the alleged offence; that the impugned FIR is nothing but abuse of process of law. It was submitted that the allegations against the appellants are false and it does not, in anyway indicate that the alleged act would constitute an offence of abetment to commit suicide; that no prima face case is made out for the offence as alleged under the Atrocities Act; that the appellants have no criminal record and are not likely to abscond; that custodial interrogation of the appellants are not found to be essential for the purpose of investigation.

[6] Learned counsel for the appellants brought to the notice of this Court as regards principles for grant of pre-arrest bail by placing reliance on the decision of Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab [1980 (2) SCC 565], to submit that the appellants have made out the case for pre-arrest bail.

[7] On the other hand, Ms. Krina Calla, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent – State and Mr.Anvesh Vyas learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 – Original complainant have opposed this appeal and pray for its rejection by contending that, considering the conduct of the appellants, nature of accusation, and therefore considering the nature of gravity of charge, severity of punishment in the event of conviction and supporting the material evidence on record, the appeal may not be entertained. It is further submission that under the Atrocities Act, there is no provisions for granting anticipatory bail, and on this ground also, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

[8] Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the records, this Court finds that before the alleged incident, the deceased Ramesh was working as a farm labourer in the field of the appellants and before committing suicide, a suicide note in the form of chit was written by the deceased and it was found from his pocket, and same was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for the opinion of handwriting expert and the authority of the Forensic Science Laboratory opined that the handwriting of the chit is of the dec