U. C. MAHESHWARI, J.

( 1 ) SHRI P. Sharma, learned Counsel for the applicants. Shri Ramesh Shukla, learned Dy. Govt. Adv. for respondent/state. This application is preferred under section 438, Criminal Procedure Code under the apprehension of the arrest of the applicants in the offence under sections 406, 294, 506-B read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code and under section 3 (l)x) of the Scheduled Castes and the scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the "sc and ST act") vide Crime No. 152/05 registered at P. S. Cheechali, District Narsinghpur madhya Pradesh.

( 2 ) IT is said that complainant teekaram Chamar had taken the land of the applicants and their other family members at "advatai" and after taking such land he cultivated the same for the crops of Rahar, Wheat and Sugar Cane etc. but the same was taken by the applicants and their family members and it was not divided with the complainant according to their agreement. Subsequently it was demanded by the complainant then as alleged he was abused with the name of his caste then a report in writing was given to the authority by complainant, on which, the offence was registered and the matter is under investigation in the aforesaid sections.

( 3 ) COUNSEL for the applicants submits that this is not a case in which the complainant was abused with intention to humiliate a member of a Scheduled caste or a Scheduled Tribe at the place within public view. He further submits that if some agreement is taken place in between applicants along with their family members and the complainant regarding some crops and the same was broken by other of the members then such act is not covered by breach of trust or fraud or by the aforesaid SC and ST act. Because it is a case of breach of contract and will give a civil action to the complainant. He further submits that at the initial stage when the agreement took place there was no dishonest intention in between the parties and as per dictum of the Apex Court in the matter of Hari Prasad Chamaria v. Bishun Kumar surekha and others. No offence is made out against the applicants. So far offence of SC and ST Act is concerned he has submitted that only taking the name of the caste of any person without any intention to humiliate him on the basis of his caste does not give any right to the authority for invoking the provisions of said SC and ST Act. Thus in such circumstances the bar created under section 18 of the said Act is not attracted to this case. In such circumstances, the alleged offence remains only for under sections 294, 506-B r/w section 34 of Indian penal Code which all are bailable sections. He further submits that if anything was happened on account of land of the applicants and their family members then no presumption could be drawn against them for committing the alleged offences. Thus, the applicants have been falsely implicated in the case while they have not committed any offence.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent/state has submitted that although the matter is related to the land of the applicants and their family but in the facts and circumstances when the authority has invoked the provisions of SC and ST Act then no anticipatory bail could be granted to the applicants even otherwise in the facts and circumstances applicants do not deserve to be extended the benefit of anticipatory bail.

( 5 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel and after perusing the case diary I am of the considered view that in the present circumstances the provision of said SC and ST Act are not applicable to the case because incident had not taken place because of the complainant belonging to the Scheduled Caste community "chamar" but due to some breach of contract some report was given in writing and on that basis the offence was registered. Besides this, taking the name of caste of any citizen of this country itself is not the offence till it is not taken with the intention to humiliate that person because of his communit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document