ORDER

1. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard through video conferencing.

2. Learned counsel for the State submits that due intimation to the victim in accordance with section 15A of SC & ST Act has been sent through office of the Addl. Advocate General by the State but despite that there is no representation on behalf of the victim.

3. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard through video conferencing.

4. Present appeal filed u/s. 14(A)(2) of the Act assails the order dated 30.9.2020 passed by the Special Sessions Judge, Morena (M.P.) whereby the application preferred by the appellant herein u/s. 438 of Cr.P.C. came to be rejected.

5. The appellant apprehends his arrest in connection with offences punishable u/ss.294, 323, 506 IPC and secs.3(1)(r)/3(1)(s)/3(2)(VA) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 registered as Crime No.88/2020, by Police Station AJK, Morena (M.P.).

6. Learned counsel for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.

7. The allegation against the applicant is of uttering abusive words and taking name of the caste of complainant in a derisive manner who is member of SC and ST community.

8. After hearing learned counsel for the rival parties, prima facie offence punishable under special enactment of Prevention of Atrocities Act is made out and therefore the present appeal is not maintainable in terms of sec.18 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

9. Accordingly this court declines anticipatory bail to appellant.

10. However, looking to the fact that since the offence in question attracts punishment less than 7 years and therefore, in view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273, it is directed that in offences involving punishment upto seven years imprisonment the police may resort to the extreme step of arrest only when the same is necessary and the appellant does not cooperate in the investigation. The appellant should first be summoned to cooperate in the investigation. If the appellant cooperates in the investigation then the occasion of his arrest should not arise.

11. For ready reference and convenience the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) are enumerated below:-

"7.1. From a plain reading of the provision u/s. 41 Cr.P.C., it is evident that a person accused of an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years with or without fine, cannot be arrested by the police officer only on his satisfaction that such person had committed the offence punishable as aforesaid. A police officer before arrest, in such cases has to be further satisfied that such arrest is necessary to prevent such person from committing any further offence; or for proper investigation of the case; or to prevent the accused from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear; or tampering with such evidence in any manner; or to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to a witness so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or the police officer; or unless such accused person is arrested, his presence in the Court whenever required cannot be ensured. These are the conclusions, which one may reach based on facts.

7.2. The law mandates the police officer to state the facts and record the reasons in writing which led him to come to a conclusion covered by any of the provisions aforesaid, while making such arrest. The law further requires the police officers to record the reasons in writing for not making the arrest.

7.3. In pith and core, the police officer before arrest must put a question to himself, why arrest? Is it really required ? What purpose it will serve ? What object it will achieve ? It is only after these questions a