The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the definition of 'place within public view' and the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT :

Vishal Mishra, J.

1. In the wake of unprecedented and uncertain situation due to outbreak of the Novel Corona virus (COVID-19) and considering the advisories issued by the Government of India, this application has been heard and decided through video conferencing to maintain social distancing. The parties are being represented by the respective counsel through video conferencing, following the norms of social distancing/physical distancing in letter and spirit.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. Present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter would be referred as "the Act") against the order dated 04.01.2021 passed by the Special Judge, Datia, whereby the bail application of the appellant under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

4. The appellant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No. 501/2020 registered at Police Station Kotwali District Datia for the offence punishable under Sections 452, 323, 294, 506, 34 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha) of S.C.S.T. Act.

5. It is argued that appellant is a working advocate at District Court Datia. He is aged about 54 years and has also remained the Govt. leader. It is argued that a false case has been registered against the present appellant for the reason that the appellant is the Advocate of wife of the complainant in her matrimonial Dispute. He has regularly contesting on behalf of the wife before the Family Court and trial Court at District Court Datia. Owing to the same, the enmity has been developed with the complainant.

6. As per the prosecution story, the incident has said to have taken place is inside the house and does not fall under the purview of the S.C.S.T. Act. He has read over the F.I.R. and has tried to establish that the place of incident is not of a public view. For that he relied upon the judgment in the case of Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another as reported in 2020 (10) S.C.C. 710 (Criminal Appeal 707/2020), wherein in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically considered not amounts to public view. It is further argued that the Court has gone to the extend even the incident should be witnessed by some members of public who are not nearly relatives and friends of the complainant.

7. Counsel for the appellant has further relied upon a judgment by a Coordinate Bench of this Court with respect to applicability for consideration of anticipatory bails in cases of S.C.S.T. Act in the case Atendra Singh Rawat vs. State of M.P. And anr. reported in 2019 (2) MPLJ 481 and has argued that when the offence under the S.C.S.T. Act is not made out prima facie from the prosecution story itself. The anticipatory bail should have been considered.

8. Admittedly, in the present case the incident is taken inside at the house and as per the prosecution the same has been witnessed in the family members of the complainant. In such circumstances, no offence under the S.C.S.C. Act is made out. Rest of the offences are bailable in nature. He is ready to cooperate in the investigation and ready to abide by all the terms and conditions which may imposed by this Court while considering his application. The appellant has shown his willingness to render his services during this Covid pandemic-19. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail.

9. Per contra, counsel for the State as well as the complainant has opposed the application stating that there is a specific bar under Section 18-A of S.C.S.T. Act for consideration of anticipatory bails. It is argued that from the F.I.R., it is apparently clear that the abusive language considering the caste of the complainant has been used by the appellant. It is further contended that merely the appellant being an advocate does not grant him liberty to commit offences and get the liberty from the Court. It is argued that Section 452 IPC is also reflected in the F.I.R. Thus, they h