JUDGMENT

Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan, J. - Heard on this appeal for anticipatory bail under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, filed on behalf of the appellant in connection with Crime No.505/2020 registered at Police Station Suatala, District Narsinghpur for commission of offences punishable under Section 294 and 506 of the I.P.C. as well as Section 3 (1) (j) and 3 (2) (v-a) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2. The appeal is directed against the order dated 15.10.2020 passed by the Court of Special Judge, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Narsinghpur, whereby learned special Judge has dismissed the application filed by the appellant under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for releasing him on anticipatory bail.

3. The case of the prosecution against the appellant is that victimManoj Choudhary belongs to Scheduled caste. His wife is working in gram panchayat. On 17.09.2020, B.S. Dhurvey called wife of the victim. The victim appeared on behalf of his wife and stated that her daughter is not well. At that time, village panchayat Sachiv-Mahendra Singh, Sarpanch-Jhalkan Singh and Deputy Sarpanch-Keher Singh were present. The appellant-Girvar Singh appeared there and stated to victim that his wife is serving, why had she not come. Victim replied that her daughter is not well. Thereafter, the appellant uttered some filthy and abusive words to victim that ^^pejk eknjpksn T;knk c<+ x;k gks] ukSdjh feyh xbZ gS] dke ugha djrs vkSj pIiYk ekjus ds fy;s vkeknk. On the basis of that, victim lodged the report against the appellant.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has political animosity and at the instance of other political rival, he has been falsely been implicated in this matter by using victim-Manoj as a tool. He did not do anything. The appellant only enquired about wife of the victim being a President and political rival persons falsely implicated him in this case; therefore, it has been prayed that the appellant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

5. Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State has vehemently opposes the bail application and submits that the appellant is having criminal past. Other persons, who are public servant and independent persons, categorically stated that appellant used filthy and derogatory words pertains to caste. Prima-facie, there is offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (j) and 3 (2) (v-a) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act made out against the appellant; therefore, prayed for dismissal of this application.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. Learned trial Court found the offence of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. In these premises, learned trial Court categorically stated that in Section 18 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act anticipatory bail is not maintainable.

7. The matter is still under investigation. Therefore, at this stage this Court is not inclined to discuss the statement of witnesses in detail. Perused the statements of B.S. Durvey and Secretary-Mahendra Singh. Both the witnesses categorically stated that the appellant used filthy and derogatory words against the victim. Statement of witnesses categorically reveals that there are prima-facie ingredients of offence under Section 3 (1) (j) and 3 (2) (v-a) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. If there is prima-facie any ingredient of offence made out against the appellant as per Section 18 and newly amended Section 18-A of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, anticipatory bail is not maintainable at this stage.

8. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, considering the bar of Section 18 and 18-A of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, in the opinion of this Court, it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.

9. Consequently, this appeal for grant of