The court applied the principle that the bar against grant of anticipatory bail in cases of atrocity against SC and ST shall not apply unless a prima facie case is made out, as established in the judgments cited.

ORDER

1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14(2) (A) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on behalf of the appellant, for anticipatory bail in FIR No.118/2020 registered at Police Station Suroth, District Karauli for the offences under Sections 143, 323, 353, 221 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(2)(S) & 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated 14.12.2021 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Karauli, whereby, the bail application preferred under Section 438 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellant was rejected.

2. Learned State counsel has submitted that he has served notice upon the complainant. Despite service, no one has put appearance on behalf of the complainant.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the present matter, no overt act has been assigned to the appellant. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant is a lady and has no criminal antecedents. It is further submitted that the co- accused Pooja Kumari and Tannu have already been enlarged on bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by the Sessions Judge, Karauli vide order dated 26.10.2021. Learned counsel further submits that the case of the appellant is on similar footing to that of co-accused. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgments passed by the Apex Court in the cases of Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand (AIR 2020 Supreme Court 5584) and Prathi Raj Chauhan Vs. Union of India (AIR 2020 Supreme Court 1036). Hence, appeal of the accused-appellant may be granted.

4. Learned State counsel has strongly opposed the appeal.

5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record.

6. Head notes of the judgment cited by learned counsel for the appellant in the case of Hitesh Verma (supra) read as under:-

"Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (33 of 1989), S.3(1)(r), S.3(1)(x)- Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974), S.482- Offence of atrocities - Quashing of charge-sheet - As per FIR, allegations of abusing informant were within four walls of her building and not within public view - Offence under S.3(1)(r) is not made out merely because informant belonging to a Scheduled Caste - Charge-sheet liable to be quashed."

7. Head notes of the judgment cited by learned counsel for the appellant in the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan (supra) read as under:-

"Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974), S.438 - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (33 of 1989), S.18A - (as inserted by Amendment Act 27 of 2018) Constitution of India, Art.21 - Anticipatory bail - Offence of atrocity under Act of 1989 - Challenge to denial - Bar created by Ss. 18 and 18A against grant of anticipatory bail in case of atrocity against SC and ST shall not apply unless prima facie case is made out - However in case of misuse of provisions Court can quash the cases to prevent misuse on settled parameters."

8. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and the facts and circumstances of the case; but without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of opinion that the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

9. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 14.12.2021 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Karauli (Raj.) is set aside. It is ordered that in the event of arrest of the accused-appellant in FIR No. 118/2020 registered at Police Station Suroth, District Karauli by the Investigation Officer, the accused-appellant shall be enlarged on bail provided she furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of concerned SHO/IO on the following conditions:-

i) That the appellant will make herself available for the investigation as and when required by the investigation officer.

ii) That the appellant will not leave India without permission of the Court.

iii) That