Anticipatory bail under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not maintainable if a prima facie case is established against the applicant, reinforcing the Act's protective measures.

ORDER :

Prem Narayan Singh, J.

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.67/2025, registered at Police Station-Sadalpur District-Dhar (MP) for the offence under Sections 420 , 467, 468, 471 of IPC , 1860 and Section 3(2)(f), 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act) Act 1989 (hereinafter referred as "the Act").

2. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 24.03.2025, passed by Special Judge SC/ST(PA), Dhar, 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 appellant has purchased the land bearing survey no.157/2/1 paiki area 0.014 hectare by registered sale deed from Sajan i.e. father of the complainant Ms. Rachna. The allegations against the appellant is only that he has managed some other person before the Registrar at the time of registration of sale deed who impersonating himself as father of the complainant, has singed the sale deed whereas his father has never signed the said sale deed. Hence, it is alleged that the sale deed is forged and fabricated. Based on the said registered sale deed, the name of the appellant is mutated in the revenue records and father of the complainant has never raised any objection or not made any complaint in this regard to any authority. Further, the complainant has filed a suit for cancellation of the said sale deed before the learned trial Court and the same was dismissed by learned trial Court and bothering by the dismissal of the suit of complainant, the complainant has lodged a false complaint against the appellant. It is further submitted that the appellant is aged about 70 years old and if the applicant is arrested, his image will be tarnished. It is alleged that registered deed was executed by another person and the cheating and forgery by impersonation was committed by present appellant. Hence, counsel for appellant requested for anticipatory bail.

4. Learned counsel for the State as well as complainant have 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 vs. State of Maharashtra , reported in (2018)6 SCC 454 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. Further, he placed reliance over the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B. Venkateshwaran vs. P. Barkthavatchalam [ (2023) 11 SCC 182 ] wherein it has been held that "it seems that the private dispute between the parties is converted into criminal proceedings. Initiation of the criminal Proceedings for the offence under Sections 3(2)(v) and (va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, therefore, is nothing but an abuse of process of law and Court." Another judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of V.M. Shah vs