For offences under the SC/ST Act, knowledge of the victim's caste and that the act occurred in public view are essential ingredients; neither was established in this case.

Judgment

Mr. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral):- By way of this appeal, appellant has challenged order dated 14.09.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, Ludhiana, whereby application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No.84 dated 12.08.2023 registered under Sections 302, 323 of the IPC, 1860 {Section 307 of the IPC, 1860 and Sections 3 & 4 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 added later on}[hereinafter referred as ‘SC/ST Act] registered at Police Station Sudhar, District Ludhiana, has been declined.

2. (i) As per prosecution allegations, Inderjit Singh @ Jeeti was the owner of a Banquet Hall, which he sold to Sewak Singh (since deceased) and Pardhan Singh about 17 months prior to the occurrence. However, said Inderjit Singh had not disclosed about the said sale to his family members. Some days ealier, Sewak Singh had changed the name of the Banquet Hall from ‘Dhaliwal Banquet Hall’ to ‘Jashan Banquet Hall’.

(ii) On 01.08.2023, Sewak Singh along with Jatinder singh, Sukhdev Singh, Ramandeep Singh, Sawaran Singh and Pardhan Singh were sitting outside the Banquet Hall, whereas Inderjit Singh @ Jeeti was present in the kitchen, when family members of Inderjit Singh, on coming to know about the sale of the Banquet Hall, came there and started arguing with Pardhan Singh. Wife of Inderjit Singh, i.e., present appellant Smt. Rajinder Kaur stated that what was their ‘ aukat’ (status) to purchase the palace and uttered casteist words to Sewak Singh, who went inside without saying anything. Inderjit Singh @ Jeeti took his wife from the spot. Later on, Sewak Singh along with others were talking to each other about the said incident, when Inderjit Singh @ Jeeti brought a Swift Car and stuck the same against Sewak Singh. He reversed the vehicle and again struck to him, causing injuries to Sewak Singh. Ramandeep and Jitender took injured Sewak Singh to hospital.

(iii) On the statement made by Sewak Singh to the police, DDR No.24 dated 03.08.2023 under Section 323 of the IPC was recorded. However, during treatment, Sewak Singh complainant - the author of the FIR, succumbed to the injuries on 11.08.2023, at which formal FIR was registered on 12.08.2023. Inderjit @ Jeeti was arrested on 12.08.2023. During investigation, pen drive containing CCTV footage of the incident dated 01.08.2023 was produced, revealing that Inderjit had hit his Swift Car to Sewak Singh with intention to kill him. Accused Rajinder Kaur (petitioner) was also nominated as an accused under Section 3 & 4 of SC/ST Act, vide DDR No.30 dated 14.08.2023, for having uttered derogatory words against caste of the complainant.

3. An application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was moved by the appellant seeking anticipatory bail but the same was dismissed on account of bar contained in Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, by learned Special Judge, Ludhiana.

4. Assailing the aforesaid order by way of present appeal, it is contended by learned counsel that all the allegations against the appellant are false. No role is attributed to her. Entire allegations are against the husband of the appellant, who has already been arrested. FIR does not disclose as to what words were used by the appellant, which itself shows the allegations to be vague, having no basis. Besides, there is nothing to show that appellant had any prior knowledge of the caste of the complainant, compelling her to utter any such words and so, prima facie, ingredients of Section 3 & 4 of The SC & ST, Act 1989 are not fulfilled. Besides, the alleged casteist derogatory words have not been used within public view. Learned counsel further pointed out that as per the allegations contained in the FIR itself, appellant was taken away by her husband after the argument and that it was only later on in the evening that alleged incident of collusion of car took place. Learned counsel contends that dispute was regarding ownership and sale of the Banquet Hall between the co-accused Inderj