JUDGMENT :

Manisha Batra, J.

The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act, 1989') by the appellant against the order dated 06.02.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court, Kaithal, whereby an application filed by him under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR No. 252 dated 05.12.2023, registered under Sections 323, 325, 341, 506, 34 of IPC and Sections 3(l)(r), 3(l)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Act, 1989 at Police Station Dhand, Kaithal, had been dismissed on the ground of non-maintainability of the application.

2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of the statement recorded by complainant Roshan alleging therein that he was having inimical relations with one Kala son of Mahavir, who was a native of his own village. On 03.12.2023, he was going from his house for doing labour work at the farm of village sarpanch and when he was crossing a road, the present appellant along with co-accused Kala, Krishna and Hariram were standing on the road. They intercepted him and started calling him as "Sale Ded Jallad" and proclaimed that they would teach him a lesson for having enmity with accused Kala. Thereafter, they started assaulting him with sticks, which they were carrying in their hands and caused injuries to him. He raised rescue alarm, on hearing which, some persons were attracted towards the spot and then while threatening him and proclaiming that he had been saved on that day but would be killed by them in future and by calling him "Ded Jallad", they fled away from the spot. The complainant was taken to hospital and was provided treatment. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings have been initiated and are underway. Apprehending his arrest, the appellant had moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court, Kaithal but the same had been dismissed by passing the impugned order while observing that that the application was not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 18-A of the Act, 1989. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and it is liable to be set aside as the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. He was not specifically named in the FIR and his name had been disclosed subsequently by the complainant. He has no enmity with the complainant. Co-accused Arun @ Kala has been extended benefit of bail. No specific act has been attributed to him. Vague and general allegations of sweeping nature have been levelled. He is ready to join the investigation. His custodial interrogation is not required. No recovery is to be effected from him. The allegations do not show that the appellant had insulted/abused the complainant at any place within public view. The provisions of the Act, 1989 have not been attracted against him even prima facie and learned Additional Sessions Judge has wrongly observed that the application for grant of anticipatory bail was not maintainable. 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. Notice of the appeal was given to the respondents. Respondent No. 2/complainant has failed to appear, despite service. Learned State counsel has argued that there are specific allegations that the appellant along with co-accused had hurled abuses to the complainant in the name of his caste and had assaulted him and had criminally intimidated him. There are specific and serious allegations against the appellant. The provisions of the Act, 1989 are prima facie attracted. Hence, it is urged that the present appeal is