JUDGMENT

Mr. Anoop Chitkara, J.

Aggrieved by the dismissal of his bail under section 438 CrPC, the accused has come up before this court by filing an appeal under section 14-A of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (SCSTPOA), seeking bail.

2. The appellant had filed a bail application before the Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran, which was dismissed on 15.04.2023.

3. In Prathvi Raj v. Union of India , AIR 2020 SC 1036 , a three-judge bench of Supreme Court read down Section 18 by declaring as follows,

[10]. Concerning the applicability of provisions of section 438 Cr.PC, it shall not apply to the cases under Act of 1989. However, if the complaint does not make out a prim face case for applicability of the provisions of the Act of 1989, the bar created by section 18 and 18A (i) shall not apply.

4. In paragraph 14 of the bail appeal, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

5. The allegations are of beating and abusing the people belonging to the scheduled castes by using the derogatory words prohibited under the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SCSTPOA).

6. The accused's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions. The appellant's contention is that the custodial investigation would serve no purpose whatsoever, and the pretrial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the appellant and family.

7. State opposes the bail.

Reasoning:

8. On prim face analysis of the nature of allegations and other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for custodial or pretrial incarceration at this stage. Furthermore, the appellant a first offender, and one of the relevant factors would be to provide an opportunity to course-correct. Even a prim face perusal of paragraph 4 of the bail appeal needs consideration for bail.

9. In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab , 1980 (2) SCC 565 , (Para 30), a Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court held that the bail decision must enter the cumulative effect of the variety of circumstances justifying the grant or refusal of bail. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav , 2005 (2) SCC 42 , (Para 18) a three-member Bench of Supreme Court held that the persons accused of non-bailable offences are entitled to bail if the Court concerned concludes that the prosecution has failed to establish a prim face case against him, or despite the existence of a prim face case, the Court records reasons for its satisfaction for the need to release such person on bail, in the given fact situations. The rejection of bail does not preclude filing a subsequent application. The courts can release on bail, provided the circumstances then prevailing requires, and a change in the fact situation. In State of Rajasthan v. Balchand , AIR 1977 SC 2447 , (Para 2 & 3), Supreme Court noticeably illustrated that the basic rule might perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like by the appellant who seeks enlargement on bail from the Court. It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is likely to induce the appellant to avoid the course of justice and must weigh when considering the question of jail. So also, the heinousness of the crime. In Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor , (1978) 1 SCC 240 , (Para 16), Supreme Court held that the delicate light of the law favours release unless countered by the negative criteria necessitating that course. In Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi , (2001) 4 SCC