Point of Law: After incorporation of S.18A of SC/ST (POA) Act, in cases where there is no prima facie case, grant of anticipatory bail is not specifically barred.

JUDGMENT :

This is an appeal filed under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, (hereinafter referred to as “the SC/ST (POA) Act, for convenience”) by the appellant, who is the accused in crime No.596 of 2022 of Valappad Police Station, registered alleging commission offence punishable under Sections 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, challenging order dated 23.09.2022 in Crl.M.P.No.2881/2022 passed by the Special Judge under the SC/ST (POA) Act, Thrissur.

2. Adv.R.Rohith appeared for the defacto complainant, when the defacto complainant was served with notice as mandated under Section 15A(3) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for the defacto complainant, and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The precise allegation of the prosecution, as could be read out from the FIS given by the defacto complainant before the Police, is that, on 30.08.2022, at about 10.00 am, when the defacto complainant herein reached Valappad Service Co-operative Bank, Beach Road Branch, Kothakulam to remit the interest towards the gold loan availed by him, the accused herein, who does not belong to the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes community and an employee of the Bank, called the caste name of the defacto complainant, who belongs to the Scheduled Castes community, and thereby abused him by calling his caste name within the public view. This is the base on which the prosecution alleges the commission of offence under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act by the appellant.

5. While challenging the order of the Special Judge, disallowing pre-arrest bail, the learned counsel for the appellant argued at length to convince this Court regarding filing of sexual harassment complaint by the accused against one V.R.Babu, who is the Secretary of the Valappad Co-operative Bank, which led to registration of crime No.350/2022, alleging that the above said V.R.Babu committed offences under Section 354A(1)(i) and 354A(1) and (2) of IPC. Annexure II is the copy of FIR and Annexure I is the copy of FIS dated 14.05.2022 in the above crime. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that in the said crime, offence under Section 376(C)a also was subsequently incorporated. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant further that since V.R.Babu continuously demanded sexual favour from the appellant herein and he made so many attempts in this regard, the appellant herein was forced to lodge complaint as Annexure II, which led to the registration of Annexure I FIR. It was thereafter, the Secretary of the Bank, who is having control over the entire affairs of the Bank with the assistance and connivance of the other employees, repeatedly compelling the appellant to withdraw the case and the present case is one foisted with an ulterior motives to achieve the said goal. He had read out the complaint filed by the accused before the Secretary as well as the Police, which are produced as Annexure VIII and Annexure IX on the date of alleged occurrence of this crime itself positing these facts.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that as per Annexure III, the Local Complaints Committee, Thrissur, on the application of the appellant with regard to the incident narrated in Annexure II FIS, conducted enquiry and finally recommended removal of V.R.Babu from the post of Secretary till the culmination of the criminal case.

Further, it was found by the Committee that the Secretary treated the appellant cruelly, mentally and in connection with her employment. Further, the Secretary made serious false and unwarranted allegations of financial scams against the appellant. He also pointed out that the defacto complainant herein is none other than the husband of Smt.Remadevi, an employee of the said Society and the same would go to show the falsity of the present complaint.

7. Whereas, the learned counsel for the defacto complainant confined his a