Anticipatory bail can be granted if no prima facie case is established under the SC/ST Act, as per the ruling in Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra.

JUDGMENT

Manisha Batra, J. (Oral)

The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocity) Act, 1989 (for short 'the SC/ST Act') by the appellant challenging the order dated 05.06.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal, whereby an application filed by him under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR No. 73 dated 19.04.2024, registered under Sections 148, 149, 285, 323, 427, 506 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(u) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act at Police Station Hassanpur, District Palwal, had been dismissed.

2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are that the aforementioned FIR has been registered on 19.04.2024 on the basis of a written complaint filed by the complainant Satveer alleging therein that he belonged to schedule caste community. It was alleged that there was a fight with the accused persons, about which, he had made a complaint to the police station but the matter was compromised with the intervention of the police officials. However, when he reached home, after some time, 20 people armed with weapons like Ballam, Farsa and country made pistol attacked on them and fired bullet shots. They extended beatings to the his daughter and sister. He named the appellant, Lokesh, Birendra, Lala, Sanjay, Bansi and some other persons as assailants. The accused persons had also damaged a motorcycle of the complainant. The incident was alleged to have taken place on 18.04.2024 at 09:30 PM. It was also alleged that the accused persons have used casteist remarks. The complainant, thus, prayed for taking action against the culprits. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated and the same are under way. Apprehending his arrest, the appellant had moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal but the same had been dismissed on the ground of maintainability, vide impugned order dated 05.06.2024. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

3. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant on the grounds and it has been argued by his counsel that he has been falsely implicated in this case. The allegations as levelled against him do not make out any case for commission of either of the offences. There are general and vague allegations against the appellant as well as co-accused. In fact, the complainant party had attacked and beaten the appellant and others and a video recording of the same was also available, which showed that the complainant party was aggressor one. A complaint was also moved in this regard but no action was taken against them. There is delay of 01 day in registration of the FIR. Neither of the provisions of Section 3 of SC/ST Act has been attracted in this case against the appellant. Learned Additional Sessions Judge had wrongly observed that the provisions of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. were not attracted in view of the allegations qua commission offence punishable under Section 3 of SC/ST Act. With these broad submissions, it is argued that the present appeal deserves to be accepted and the appellant deserves to be given benefit of pre-arrest bail.

4. On the other hand, it is argued by learned State counsel that there are serious and specific allegations against the appellant. He had not only opened attack on the complainant and his daughter but has also damaged his property. The appellant and co-accused have also used derogatory words related to complainant's caste. It is further argued that thorough investigation is required to be conducted in the matter. Even otherwise, provisions of Section 3 of the SC/ST Act are fully attracted in this case, thereby creating a bar for exercising powers under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. Hence, it is urged that the present appeal is liable to be dismissed.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at con