The judgment establishes the importance of considering the severity of offences, the accused's criminal history, and the need for stringent conditions in granting bail under the SC/ST Act, 1989.

JUDGMENT

1. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his bail under section 438 CrPC, the accused has come up before this court by filing an appeal under section 14-A of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (SCSTPOA), seeking bail.

2. The appellant had filed a bail application before the Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal, which was dismissed on 26.04.2022.

3. In Prathvi Raj v. Union of India, AIR 2020 SC 1036, a three-judge bench of Supreme Court read down S. 18 by declaring as follows,

[10]. Concerning the applicability of provisions of section 438 Cr.PC, it shall not apply to the cases under Act of 1989. However, if the complaint does not make out a prima facie case for applicability of the provisions of the Act of 1989, the bar created by section 18 and 18A (i) shall not apply.

4. In paragraph 15 of the appeal, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

5. On 18.03.2022, the complainant's grandson was going to the house of his maternal uncle on his motorcycle. On the way, his motorcycle struck some persons on which 8-10 persons attacked at him with lathi, dandas, knife, one country made pistol and kassi. On this, he received injuries and he was hospitalized. They also used derogatory language relating to caste against him.

6. Ld. Counsel for the appellant contends that the custodial investigation would serve no purpose whatsoever, and the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the appellant and family.

7. Ld. counsel representing the State opposes bail.

REASONING:

8. The appellant is a first offender, and one of the relevant factors would be to provide an opportunity to course-correct. Even a primafacie perusal of paragraph 4 & 5 of the appeal needs consideration for bail.

9. In the present case, the maximum sentence imposable for the offences mentioned in FIR does not exceed seven years. Thus, directions passed in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, (Para 13), apply to this petition, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court directed all the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to arrest the accused automatically when the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years; whether with or without fine.

10. The possibility of the accused influencing the investigation, tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, and the likelihood of fleeing justice, can be taken care of by imposing elaborative and stringent conditions. In Sushila Aggarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 1, Para 92, the Constitutional Bench held that unusually, subject to the evidence produced, the Courts can impose restrictive conditions.

11. Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the appellant makes a case for bail, subject to the following terms and conditions, which shall be over and above and irrespective of the contents of the form of bail bonds in chapter XXXIII of CrPC, 1973.

12. In Mahidul Sheikh v. State of Haryana, CRM-33030-2021 in CRA-S-363-2020, decided on 14-01-2022, Para 53, [Law Finder Doc Id # 1933969], this Court observed,

[53]. The pragmatic approach is that while granting bail with sureties, the 'Court' and the 'Arresting Officer' should give a choice to the accused to either furnish surety bonds or to handover a fixed deposit, or direct electronic money transfer where such facility is available, or creating a lien over his bank account. The accused should also have a further option to switch between the modes. The option lies with the accused to choose between the sureties and deposits and not with the Court or the arresting officer.

13. Given above, provided the accused is not required in any other