IMPORTANT POINT
The SC/ST Act bars anticipatory bail when prima facie offences are established, emphasizing the protection of individuals from caste-based discrimination.

JUDGMENT :

MANISHA BATRA, J.

1. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellants challenging the order dated 06.11.2023, whereby an application for grant of pre-arrest bail filed by the appellants was dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur on the ground that Section 18 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the SC/ST Act’) created a bar for grant of anticipatory bail.

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present appeal are that the respondent had filed a complaint against the present appellants alleging therein that her husband has been allotted a five Marla plot by the Gram Panchayat of the village. The appellant No. 4-Randhir Singh, who has no right, title or interest over the above said plot, along with the other appellants tried to encroach upon the plot owned by her husband in the evening of 24.07.2017 and started ploughing the same with a tractor which was driven by the appellant No. 1. Coming to know about this fact, the respondent along with some other persons who were also allottees of the adjacent plots rushed towards the plot and requested the appellants not to encroach upon the same. However, the appellants who are co-villagers and know that the respondent belongs to Schedule Caste being Majhabi Sikh, started abusing her in the name of caste and insulted her with derogatory language by saying that “Is Churi Mazban Nu Sanu Theke Te Lai Panchayat The Jamin Vahun Ton Rokan Da Maza Das Deo.” She further alleged that appellant No. 2 caught hold of her from neck whereas she was assaulted by appellant No. 1 and the appellant No. 3 tried to outrage her modesty by tearing of her shirt. She raised alarm, on hearing which, several persons had gathered at the spot and rescued her from the clutches of the present appellants. She further alleged that while going, the appellants had proclaimed that they would force the respondent to leave the village and also extended threat to kill her. It was also alleged that she had reported the matter to the police but since no action was taken by the police, therefore, she was constrained to file a private complaint before the Court.

3. On presentation of the complaint, opportunity was granted to the respondent to produce preliminary evidence and then the present appellants were directed to be summoned to face trial for commission of offences punishable under Sections 148, 323, 354, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC as well as under Sections 3 of the SC&ST Act.

4. The appellants had filed an application for grant of pre-arrest bail before the concerned Court and by passing the impugned order and holding that the application for grant of bail did not deserve to be allowed on merits as well as on the point of maintainability, the same has been dismissed.

5. It is submitted in the ground of appeal and learned counsel for the appellants has argued that they have been falsely implicated in this case. In fact, the appellant No. 1 Sukhwinder Singh has got registered an FIR bearing No. 60 dated 07.08.2017 as against the husband of the respondent for commission of offence under Section 326 of IPC and as a pressure tactic, this complaint had been filed by the complainant. It is also submitted that the caste certificate of the respondent has not been proved in accordance with law before the concerned Court and therefore, it cannot be stated that she belongs to SC category and therefore, no case for commission of offence punishable under the provision of the SC/ST Act has been made out against them. It is also submitted that their bail application has been dismissed in view of the bar created under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act. The custodial interrogation of the appellants is not required. The allegations under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act are not made out. The husband of the complainant is not proved to be belonging to SC/ST category and the respondent being his wife, the provisions of the S