Anticipatory bail can be denied if a prima facie case is established under the SC/ST Act, supported by corroborative evidence.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Alok Jain, J.

The present second appeal has been filed by the appellants seeking concession of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 45 dated 09.04.2024 under Section 323, 34, 427 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, registered at Police Station Behai Bhiwani, District Bhiwani.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants after taking this Court through the FIR has opened his arguments that the Court below has erred by denying the concession of anticipatory bail to the appellants as it did not properly appreciate the grounds and evidence which entitle the appellants to be granted the concession of pre-arrest bail.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants after taking through the contents of the FIR has submitted that the registration of FIR itself was a pre-meditated and a calculated move on the part of the complaint. He submits that after lodging of the FIR, when the Investigating Officer had gone to the hospital for recording the statement of the complainant, interestingly, the complainant instead of getting his statement reduced into writing, handed over a typed copy of his statement to the Investigating Officer. He submits that a typed statement clearly demonstrates that the complainant had planned the entire exercise of initiating criminal proceedings against the appellants. He submits that the complainant has an incongruous relation with the appellants for the reason that appellant No. 2 was working as a tube well operator and the complainant in his official capacity had stopped the pay of the appellant No. 2 for which one of the appellants approached this Court by filing a civil writ petition. He contends that there was another dispute between the parties qua a parcel of land in their village and in that dispute the complainant nefariously dislodged the appellants from their land and the parties are in litigation in that matter also. He further submits that the complaint against the appellants is nothing but an act of vengeance and the FIR was lodged only to entangle the appellants under a statute where it would be practically impossible for them to obtain anticipatory bail. The complainant maliciously with an oblique motive, in order to pressurize the appellants in the civil litigation pending between them, lodged the present FIR. Learned counsel for the appellants has also argued that the FIR makes omnibus allegations as to the utterance of certain words and does not make specific imputations against a particular appellant, hence, the version narrated in the FIR is nothing but a concocted story propounded by the complainant himself. The allegations in the FIR are ambiguous and have been levelled only to entangle all the appellants, who are family members against whom the complainant has personal animosity.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants has also contended that in fact, the current dispute emanated on 07.04.2024, when it is alleged that the appellants gave beatings to the masons and laborers who were constructing the boundary wall of a Chaupal which was broken by the appellants and subsequently, a Gram Sabha was called and a resolution was passed but interestingly, in the resolution of 07.04.2024 and 08.04.2024 of the Gram Sabha, there is no mention of any castiest remarks being uttered by the appellants. If the allegations in the FIR are to taken to be true then it is very strange that the Authorities took more than 01 month 15 days to record the statements of other respectable residents of the village i.e. on 23.05.2024 which demonstrates that the case of the complainant is his own invention and has nothing to do will reality.

5. The counsel for the appellants has summarized his arguments that it was in the background of the previous hostile relations between the parties which include the allegations of demanding of unlawful gratification by the complainant from one the appellants for releasing his salary; the dispute with regard to filing of a writ