The central legal point established in the judgment is the need for strict construction of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and the consideration of individual rights in the context of granting anticipatory bail.

Headnote:
Anticipatory Bail - S.C./S.T. Act - 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(V) - The court discussed the applicability of Section 18 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and considered relevant judgments to set aside the rejection of anticipatory bail for the appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant sought anticipatory bail in a case involving charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), and 3(2)(V) of the S.C./S.T. Act. The prosecution alleged that the appellant and his companions kidnapped and abused the complainant, who is an S.D.O. of the Electricity Department, in caste abusive language.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rejection of anticipatory bail based on Section 18 of the Act, 1989 was not sustainable. It considered the location of the incident and relevant case law to set aside the impugned judgment and order, allowing the appeal and granting anticipatory bail to the appellant.
Issues: The issues involved the applicability of Section 18 of the Act, 1989 in denying anticipatory bail and the interpretation of relevant legal provisions in the context of the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the rejection of anticipatory bail based on Section 18 of the Act, 1989 was not justified, considering the location of the incident and relevant case law. It emphasized the need for strict construction of the Act and the protection of individual rights.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgment and order rejecting anticipatory bail were set aside. The appellant was granted anticipatory bail with specific conditions.

JUDGMENT :

(Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The present appeal has been filed with a prayer to allow the appeal as well as to set aside the judgement and order dated 30.10.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Lucknow in Anticipatory Bail Application No.8326 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No.433 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 332, 353, 342, 364 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha) and 3(2)(V) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Thakurganj, District Lucknow.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that the complainant is an S.D.O. of Electricity Department and on the date of incident, the accused alongwith his companions had kidnapped the informant and thereafter, they abused him in caste abusive languages, beaten him and also threatened him to life.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the entire prosecution story is false and fabricated. No case under the Sections of 3(1)(Da)(Dha) of S.C./S.T. Act is attracted against the appellant. As per the prosecution story, the incident is alleged to have taken place at night inside the electricity office, which is neither a public place nor there was any public view and the instant appellant was not present at the time of the alleged incident. He further submits that even the offence under the provisions of I.P.C. is also not attracted against the appellant. Thus, the entire prosecution story appears to be false and lodged with malafide intention to implicate the entire family of the appellant.

5. He further submits that by means of the impugned order dated 30.10.2023, the application seeking anticipatory bail by the present appellant came to be rejected by learned trial Court on the ground that entertaining such application for anticipatory bail is specifically barred and excluded by virtue of Section 18 of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1989').

6. Being germane to the present controversy, Section 18 of SC/ST Act is quoted herein below :

"18. Section 438 of the Code not to apply to persons committing an offence under the Act.? Nothing in section 438 of the Code shall apply in relation to any case involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of having committed an offence under this Act."

7. He further submits that the aforesaid impugned order dated 30.10.2023 is patently illegal insofar as the same has been passed without considering the law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs. Union of India and Other; (2020) 4 SCC 727 and judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gopal Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and Others; Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.16343 of 2020. He further submits that the incident does not took place in the public view and public place, therefore, the appellant may be given benefit of judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2020) 10 SCC 710, wherein in para 13 and 18, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has opined as under:-

"13. All insults or intimidations to a person will not be an offence under the Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The object of the Act is to improve the socio-economic conditions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes as they are denied number of civil rights. Thus, an offence under the Act would be made out when a member of the vulnerable section of the Society is subjected to indignities, humiliations and harassment. The assertion of title over the land by either of the parties is not due to either the indignities, humiliations or harassment. Every citizen has a right to avail their remedies in accordance with law. Therefore, if the appellant or his family members have invoked jurisdiction of the civil court, or that respondent No.2 has invoked

Click Here to Read the rest of this document