The main legal point established in the judgment is that for an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the essential requirement is that the victim should be a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and the offence should be committed against them on the basis of their caste or tribe.

R.C.Kathuria, J.

1. Petitioner Saroj Kumari has filed this petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafer referred to as `the Code) praying for grant of anticipatory bail as she has been summoned to face trial under Sections 323/379/504/506, Indian Penal Code read with Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act) as per order dated 29.5.2001 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar, in Criminal Complaint No. 143-1/2000 instituted by complainant Chajju Ram against the petitioner.

2. Essential facts to focus the controversy involved in this petition need be noticed :

3. Chajju Ram (complainant) is employed as a Head Master in Government Primary School, Agroha, District Hisar. He claims to be `Harijan by caste. Saroj Kumari (petitioner-accused) is working as a J.B.T. Teacher in the same school. As per allegations made in the complaint, she did not come to the school in time and used to mark herself present in the attendance register. Whenever the complainant objected to the same, she remarked that where `Chamer was Head Teacher, there was no use of coming to school in time. While addressing the complainant as a `Chamar, she had also threatened the complainant that in case he asked her to come to school in time, he and his family would face dire consequences. The petitioner was entrusted the work of distributing ration to the students of the school and she allegedly misappropriated two bags of rice and sold the same. Objection was raised by the complainant in this regard and a complaint was also filed by him against her to the Gram Panchayat, Agroha. The Gram Panchayat imposed a fine of one bag of rice upon the petitioner and she assured to deliver the same within two days, but this undertaking was not honoured by her. On 27.9.2000, the petitioner came late to the school. The complainant objected to it and asked her to fill the time of her arrival in the attendance register. This infuriated her. While addressing the complainant as `Chamar and saying that she would teach him a lesson, she gave 2/3 slaps to the complainant. Balraj son of Chhaju Ram, Chandra widow of Darya Singh, Manju Bala and Mahesh Kumari, teacher of the school, came to the spot and saved the complainant from the hands of the petitioner. She also threatened the complainant in the presence of the above-mentioned witnesses that she would implicate him in some false case by the committing suicide. The complainant informed about this incident to the Gram Panchayat, Agroha and complaints were also made by him to the Deputy Commissioner, Hisar, and Police Station, Agroha, but no action was taken by the police. Under these circumstances, the complaint was filed against the petitioner in the Court.

4. In support of the allegations made in the complaint, Chajju Ram (complainant) himself appeared as C.W.1 and examined Chander as C.W.2. After taking into consideration the preliminary evidence led by the complainant, the petitioner was summoned to face trial, as stated above.

5. The petitioner had initially sought anticipatory bail in the Court of Sessions at Hisar. The Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar as per order dated 5.9.2001 rejected the prayer of the petitioner primarily for the reason that there is no provision in the Act for granting anticipatory bail.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while pressing for her bail, has strenuously urged before me that the present complaint has been filed on account of animosity of the complainant against the petitioner. The complainant used to collect funds from the students, but never deposited the same in the government account. The petitioner objected to it and made a written complaint to the authorities in September, 2000. Block Education Officer, Hisar, had enquired into her the matter. Similar complaint was also made by Dev Raj Taneja against the complainant and after an enquiry int