A plea for anticipatory bail in respect of offence(s) under the Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is maintainable and can be granted if no prima facie case is made out under the Act, or if the case is prima facie false, motivated, or malafide, or where non-granting of such plea would cause miscarriage of justice or abuse of process of law.

Judgment

Mr. Sumeet Goel, J.

Vide this common order/judgment, afore-mentioned two appeals arising out of the same FIR, in which grant of anticipatory bail herein is sought for, are being disposed of.

2. The afore-mentioned two appeals have been filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter to be referred as 1989 Act’) impugning the order dated 04.12.2023 whereby the plea made by the appellant(s) (herein) for grant of pre-arrest/anticipatory bail in FIR No.381 dated 12.09.2023, under Sections 148, 149, 323, 325, 354-B, 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(s)/3(2)VA of 1989 Act was declined.

3. The translated version of abovesaid FIR (as stated in the appeal) reads as under:-

“Copy of complaint is as follows: - To, the SHO, P.S. Tehsil Camp., Panipat. Subject: Complaint regarding an attack with intention to kill, against Kala, Arvind Kumar and other 15-20 unknown boys and for taking strict legal action. Sir, it is requested that I, Suman wife of Sh. Ram Kumar, Caste Chamar, am resident of Moti Ram Colony, Noorwala, Panipat. On 08.09.2023 at about 08:30 PM, I had gone to the house of Raj Kumar on the occasion of birthday of his granddaughter Joyashi. At that time Kala who is doing finance work, had come to demand money from the son of my Jeth, then he stated that today there is birthday of his niece; therefore, he would give his money later on. On hearing this, Kala had become furious and while shouting started abusing by uttering – Dhedh, Kameene and gave many slaps on his mouth and after going out he made phone call, then 15-20 Gunda type of young persons armed with weapons reached there, who were having iron rods, Bindas, Swords, Knives etc. in their hand and they, on coming with intention to kill us, opened assault upon us and had tore my clothes. Arvind and Kala inflicted leg blows on my abdomen and opened assault upon me with iron rod. In this the accused had thrown bricks at us and assaulted with weapons, in which other members of the family had also suffered injuries and caused huge damage to the house. Then gathered and on seeing them, accused while going from there started abusing by uttering – Dhedh, Kameen, Chamaron, today you have been saved, again in future after finding opportunity we would kill you. After this, Kapinder and nearby neighbours brought me to Civil Hospital, where the Doctors keeping in view my serious condition, had referred me to PGI, Rohtak, but on account of oozing excess blood, the family members got me admitted in Ravindra Hospital, Panipat, where my treatment is going on. It is prayed to your goodself that after taking legal action against the accused, I may be provided justice. I shall be highly obliged to your goodself. Sd/ Suman, Applicant – Sd/- Suman wife of Shri Ram Kumar, Caste Chamar, Moti Ram Colony, Noorwala, Panipat 88140772060, dated 12.09.2023…… Police proceedings.”

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant(s) have been falsely roped in on account of a money dispute between the parties and the allegations relating to 1989 Act have been made malafidely so as to give a more serious colour to the dispute between the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant(s) has further argued that the appellant(s) have always been willing to join investigation and extend cooperation. Thus, pre-arrest/anticipatory bail has been prayed for.

5. The interim anticipatory bail was extended to the appellant(s), vide orders dated 10.01.2024 and 18.01.2024 respectively, passed by this Court. Learned State Counsel has submitted that the appellant(s) have joined investigation and are not required for custodial interrogation. However, learned State counsel has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant(s) by arguing that the allegations made against the appellant(s) are serious in nature & hence the appellant(s) ought not to be granted anticipatory bail.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant has str