IMPORTANT POINTS
A person who is accused of an offence under the Act is not entitled to get anticipatory bail does not mean that he is not entitled to get regular bail. The privilege of pre-arrest bail, in respect of the offences under the Act, is often denied to an accused only for the reason that Sections 18 and 18A of the Act interdict the court from granting that relief. In many cases registered under the Act, custodial interrogation of the accused may not be necessary and there may not be any risk of the accused fleeing from justice-The allegations against the appellant, prima facie, constitute the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act and the bar under Section 18A of the Act is attracted.

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 appellant is the first accused in the case registered as Crime No.107/2020 of the Thrikkakara police station under Sections 353, 294(b) and 506 (i) read with 34 I.P.C and also under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act. The penal provision mentioned in the first information statement as Section 4(i)(s) of the Act appears to be a mistake.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is as follows: On 05.03.2020, at about 12.30 hours, the appellant and the second accused together went to the office of the Thrikkakara Municipality to get back the documents which had been submitted by the appellant for obtaining licence to conduct a beauty parlour. The de facto complainant (hereinafter referred to as 'the victim') was working as Health Inspector in the Municipality. When there was some delay in returning the documents, the appellant and the second accused entered into the cabin of the victim. The appellant used obscene words to the annoyance of the victim and threatened him and caused obstruction to him in discharging his duties as a public servant. When the victim came out of his cabin, the appellant followed him and abused him by calling him by his caste name. She did so in the presence of the staff and the members of the public who were in the office.

4. The appellant filed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C before the Court of Session, Ernakulam.

As per the impugned order, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the aforesaid application. Learned Sessions Judge held that the allegations against the appellant, prima facie, constitute the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act and the bar under Section 18A of the Act is attracted. Learned Sessions Judge also found that custodial interrogation of the appellant would be necessary for the purpose of investigation and that granting of bail to the appellant would affect the smooth progress of the investigation and that possibility of the appellant influencing the witnesses and interfering with the investigation cannot be ruled out.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the records.

6. Section 15A(5) of the Act provides that, a victim shall be entitled to be heard at any proceedings under the Act in respect of bail. But, the appellant has not taken care to implead the victim in the appeal in his personal capacity. The third respondent in the appeal is the Health Inspector of Thrikkakara Municipality and not the victim. The appellant has also not taken steps to issue notice to the victim through e-mail, as directed by this Court. However, after hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, in the nature of the order proposed to be passed by this Court in this appeal, I did not find it necessary to adjourn the appeal for enabling the appellant to take proper steps to issue notice to the victim.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the case against the appellant is a false one and that the averments in the first information statement given to the police by the victim do not reveal commission of any offence under the Act by the appellant and therefore, the learned Sessions Judge has gone wrong in invoking the provision contained in Section 18A(2) of the Act to decline the benefit of pre-arrest bail to the appellant.

8. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor would contend that the averments in the first information statement given to the police by the victim would disclose the ingredients of the offences under the Act alleged against the appellant. Learned Public Prosecutor would also contend 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.

9. Section 18 of the Act provid