IMPORTANT POINTS
Ingredients of the offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act is that the acts mentioned under that provisions shall be committed by the accused within public view. Merely for the reason that a person who does not belong to scheduled caste commits such acts against a person who belongs to scheduled caste, the offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act would not be attracted. It is necessary that such acts shall be committed within public view. It is not sufficient that the alleged acts have been committed at a public place

JUDGMENT :

This is an appeal filed under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

2. The appellants are the accused in the case registered as Crime No.1510/2019 of Nedumangad police station. The case was initially registered under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 506, 427 and 308 read with 34 I.P.C. Subsequently, the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act were added.

3. The case against the appellants was registered on the basis of the first information statement given to the police by the fourth respondent/de facto complainant. The material averments in the first information statement can be stated as follows:

On 12.09.2019, at about 21.30 hours, while the de facto complainant was proceeding through a public road and when he reached the place Parayankavu Junction, the accused reached there on two motor cycles. They stopped the motor cycles in front of the de facto complainant and obstructed him. The first accused abused him by using obscene words and beat him on the head with a wooden piece causing injury above his right eye and the forehead. The first accused threatened the de facto complainant that he would kill him and he again beat him on the back of his head. The other accused kicked and stamped him on various parts of his body. When people reached there on hearing his hue and cry, the accused left the place on the motor cycles. During the incident, the de facto complainant lost an amount of Rs.9,500/-and also the mobile phone which he was carrying with him.

4. The appellants/accused filed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code) before the Court of Session, Thiruvananthapuram. As per the impugned order, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the aforesaid application holding that a prima facie case was made out against the petitioners revealing commission of the offences under the Act and the prohibition under Section 18 of the Act would apply in granting pre-arrest bail to them.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and also the learned Public Prosecutor. I have also heard the learned counsel for the fourth respondent/de facto complainant. Perused the case diary.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the averments in the first information statement given to the police by the de facto complainant and the allegations raised against the appellants would not reveal commission of any offence under the Act by them and therefore, the learned Sessions Judge has gone wrong in invoking Section 18 of the Act and declining the benefit of anticipatory bail to them.

7. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor would contend that the case diary contains sufficient materials attracting the ingredients of the offences under the Act which are alleged against the appellants. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there is absolute bar under Sections 18 and 18A(2) of the Act against granting anticipatory bail to a person accused of having committed an offence under the Act. Learned counsel for the fourth respondent has supported the submissions made by the learned Public Prosecutor.

8. Section 18 of the Act provides that nothing in Section 438 of the Code shall apply in relation to any case involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of having committed an offence under the Act.

9. Section 18A(2) of the Act, which was introduced by Act 27 of 2018 and which came into force with effect from 20.08.2018, provides that the provisions of Section 438 of the Code shall not apply to a case under the Act, notwithstanding any judgment or order or direction of any Court.

10. In Union of India v. State of Maharashtra : AIR 2019 SC 4917 : AIR Online 2019 SC 1167, the Supreme Court has considered the question of misuse of the provisions of the Act and it has been held as follows:

“The consistent view of this