The judgment emphasizes the need to demonstrate intention to humiliate a member of the SC/ST community for the SC/ST Act to apply, and discusses the applicability of anticipatory bail under the Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. This Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred by the appellants in form of anticipatory bail apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.331/2020 registered at Police Station-Pipariya, District-Hoshangabad (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3 (1)(r), 3 (1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred as ‘Act, 1989’).

2. According to prosecution case, on 01.11.2020, complainant-Raghuveer lodged the FIR against the present appellants stating therein that his agricultural land is situated near the river and construction work of pond was going over there. The soil of said land was sold by the complainant to one Rajeev Bakshi. On 31.10.2020, when complainant was in his field, present appellants came there, being annoyed for the reason of non-supply of soil by the complainant to them, they abused him on his caste. Appellants have also intimidated the complainant for demolishing his house and assaulted him with hosepipe on his backside and appellant-Mahesh Patel bore him down on the ground and trampled his face as a consequence of which, the complainant sustained injuries on his head and right eye.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are innocent and they have falsely been implicated in this case. In fact, on account of dispute between the appellants and one Rajeev Bakshi, the complainant has lodged false complaint against them. He submits that as per prosecution, the alleged incident was seen by witnesses, namely, Sita Ram and Halke Sahu, but they have given their affidavits denying the alleged incident. He also submits that there is no iota of evidence to constitute the alleged offences against the present appellants. It is further submitted by the counsel that now it is well settled by the Higher Court of law that only because the complainant belongs to a particular caste, offence under SC/ST Act, would not be attracted, it has to be demonstrated that the crime was committed to victimize the complainant only because he belongs to a particular caste. The appellants have also filed a representation before the concerning S.P. He further submits that incident was nothing but a minor tiff between the parties, however, Rajeev Bakshi and complainant have tried to somehow implicate the present appellants in non-bailable offences under the garb of SC/ST Act. He has further argued that in the aforesaid circumstances as argued above, bar of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act would not be applicable in this case. The appellants have no criminal record and there is no likelihood of their absconding and tempering with the evidence of prosecution. The injuries sustained by the complainant are simple in nature. In support of his submissions, he has produced some catena of judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the High Courts', some are also mentioned herein under :-

“1. Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs. Union of India reported in (2020)4 SCC 427.

2. Vinay Kumar Chouhan Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) in Bail Application No.2060/2020, passed by the High Court of Delhi.

3. Danish Khan @ Saahil Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) in Bail Application No.3497/2020, passed by the High Court of Delhi.

4. Jones Vs. State reported in 2004 Cr.L.J. 2755 passed by High Court of Madras.

5. Rajsh Kumar Jain Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. reported in MANU/MP/0843/2020 passed by this High Court.

6. Balram Vs. State of M.P. in Cr.A.No.4880/2020 passed by this High Court.

7. Ramkumar Shukla Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. reported in MANU/MP/0071/2020 passed by this Bench.”

With the aforesaid, he prays for allowing this appeal.

4. On the other hand, learned P.L. for the State as well as counsel for the objector opposes the submissions of appellants' counsel and submits that under the Act 1989, there is no provision for granting anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the objector submits th