IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that allegations under the SC/ST Act require evidence of public view humiliation, which was not present in this case.

JUDGMENT :

(Manisha Batra, J.) :

The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the SC/ST Act’) by the appellants challenging the order dated 17.01.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal in Bail Application No. 34 of 2022 filed by the appellants/accused in case arising out of FIR No. 699 dated 22.12.2021, registered under Sections 323, 354-A, 406, 498-A, 506, 509, 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act at Police Station Sector 32/33, Karnal, whereby the above said application of the appellants for grant of anticipatory bail had been dismissed.

2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint filed by respondent No. 2/complainant alleging therein that she was married with the appellant No. 1 Gunjan Gogia on 19.02.2019 according to Sikh rites and ceremonies. Her parents had spent an amount of more than Rs. 20 Lakhs in the marriage and gold ornaments, furniture and other articles were given to the appellants in the form of dowry. She alleged that the appellants, who are her husband and other members of her in-laws family, were not satisfied with the dowry so given and they started harassing her physically as well as mentally by taunting that the dowry so received as not as per their status and was of low quality. At that time, she was in a govt. job and was working as a permanent Assistant Professor at IHM Institute at Ahmedabad. However, the appellants induced her to leave that job by saying that they were having good business and would keep her with respect and love and she did not need to pursue her job any further. They even assured her to continue her further education. By believing them, she left her job but thereafter, they started taunting her that she was dependent upon them and as to why she was not working. She alleged that the appellants raised demand of a car and Rs. 5 Lakhs from her by asking her to bring the same from parents and when she refused to do so, then she was physically assaulted. All her ornaments were kept by the appellants and she was not allowed to use them. She alleged that on 24.04.2019, she was physically assaulted by the appellants on account of demand of car and money and as she sustained injuries, then feeling scared, they had taken her to Max Hospital, Patparganj while extending threat to kill her if she disclosed about the incident to anybody. She alleged that Tushar Valecha, cousin of her husband, was also keeping an evil eye on her and used to sexually harass her and when she complained about this fact to her husband and mother-in-law, then instead of redressing her grievance, they proclaimed that she would be meeting with this behaviour until their demand was met. She also alleged that she belonged to scheduled caste community, therefore, all the appellants used to insult her in the name of her caste by hurling abuses to her and by calling her as “Chamari, Dhedni, Kamini and Neech” and also by saying that she would remain as she was. The investigation was underway. The appellants had moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal but the same had been dismissed, vide impugned order dated 17.01.2024 by observing that the provisions of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. were not attracted in this case as the appellants had been booked for commission of offence punishable under Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act.

3. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellants on the grounds and it has been argued by their counsel that they have been falsely implicated in this case. No case for commission of subject offences much less offence under Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act has been made out against them. It was a love-cum-arranged marriage between the victim and appellant No. 1. The victim was working with Central Govt. Inst