A prima facie case must be established for anticipatory bail to be granted under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

ORDER

1. The present appeal filed by the appellant under section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.215/2023, registered at Police Station-Nalkheda, District-Agar Malwa (MP) for the offence under sections 420, 467, 468, 471,120-B,406,294,506,419 of IPC, 1860 and section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(f), 3(1) (s), 3(2)(v),3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act) Act 1989 (hereinafter referred as " of the Act").

2.This appeal has been filed against the order dated 8.6.2024, passed by Special Judge SC/ST(PA), Agar Malwa, whereby learned Special Judge rejected the bail application of appellant with finding that there is prima facie case against the appellant punishable under the offences.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case. As per prosecution, the Complainant has filed civil suit against the appellant and others. The said civil Suit was dismissed by the learned Trail Court. Thereafter, the complainant has filed an appeal which was also dismissed by the learned Appellate Court. Thereafter, the present FIR is filed as a counter blast. It is alleged that the said land has been purchased by the appellant through registered sale deed from a person whose name is Harlal. As per prosecution case, Harlal is the person from whom the land has been purchased but he has already expired before this registered deed. It is alleged that registered deed was executed by another person and the cheating and forgery by impersonation was committed by present appellant. However, such allegations were not proved by the complainant before the learned Civil Court and Civil Suit was dismissed. It is submitted hat in this case co-accused Kaluram has been granted bail by this Court in CRA No. 5699/2020. Hence, counsel for appellant requested for anticipatory bail.

4. Learned counsel for the State as well as complainant opposed the appeal and submitted that since this is an anticipatory bail under section SC/ST (POA) Act, hence, it is not maintainable under the provisions of sections 18 and 18-A of the SC/ST (POA) Act and therefore, the appeal should be rejected on the basis of maintainability.

5. In reply, counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2018)6 SCC 454 and the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India, reported in 2020 2 SCC Online SC 159 in support of his submissions. It is submitted that there is nothing on record by which it can be assumed that the offence was committed and only because the complainant is belonging to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, the prima facie case cannot be made out.

6. Before considering rival submissions of both the parties, the provision of section 18 and 18-A of the Act is worth to refer here.

" 18. Section 438 of the Code not to apply to persons committing an offence under the Act.—Nothing in Section 438 of the Code shall apply in relation to any case involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of having committed an offence under this Act.

18-A No enquiry or approval required (1) For the purposes of this Act, —(a)preliminary enquiry shall not be required for registration of a First Information Report against any person; or

(b)the investigating officer shall not require approval for the arrest, if necessary, of any person, against whom an accusation of having committed an offence