Court No. - 67

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1570 of 2021

Appellant :- Manoj Kumar And Another

Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Appellant :- Swapnil Kumar,Shivendra Raj

Singhal

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Avanish Kumar

Shukla,Mithilesh Kumar Shukla

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

This appeal has been laid before me after being nominated by

Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice by order dated 04.10.2021.

Heard Shri Shivendra Raj Singhal, learned counsel for the

appellants; Shri Mithilesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for

the opposite party no.2 as well as Shri Ghanshyam Kumar,

learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled

Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

(in short "S.C./S.T. Act") has been against the bail rejection

order dated 23.12.2020 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST

Act, Agra in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.954 of 2021

(Manoj Kumar and another vs. State of U.P) arising out of Case

Crime No.33 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506,

452, 354 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)Da, 3(1)Dha of SC/ST Act,

Police Station-Sikandra, District-Agra.

Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between

the parties and the matter is ripe for final submissions.

Perusal of the F.I.R. it is clear that the F.I.R. was registered by

Anil Kumar through an application u/s 156(3) CrPC on

22.01.2021 after inordinate delay of seven months for the

incident said to have taken place on 23.4.2020. There is no

justifiable explanation coming forward for this inordinate delay

in lodging the F.I.R. The F.I.R. has been lodged against five

named and 7-8 unknown with the allegation that the contesting

parties are the neighbour and without any rhyme and reason the

appellants started hurling filthy abuses. When objected by the

informant, all named accused persons assailed upon by the

lathi, danda and iron rod and not only this, they have tried to

misuse with the lady folks. I have perused the injury reports of

both the injured, which reveals that they have sustained simple

injuries. The Court has also occasion to peruse the statement of

the victim Raj Kumari recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C., in which she

has attributed certain role of hurling filthy abuses to the

appellants and also indecently touching the gender of the lady.

Learned counsel for the appellants has further relied upon the

judgment pronounced by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Hitesh Verma v State of Uttarakhand and another, reported in

2020 (10) SCC 710 and made emphasis upon paragraph 13 of

the Judgement, which is as under :

"13. The offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act would indicate

the ingredient of intentional insult and intimidation with an

intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a

Scheduled Tribe. 6 All insults or intimidations to a person will

not be an offence under the Act unless such insult or

intimidation is on account of victim belonging to Scheduled

Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The object of the Act is to improve

the socio-economic conditions of the Scheduled Castes and the

Scheduled Tribes as they are denied number of civil rights.

Thus, an offence under the Act would be made out when a

member of the vulnerable section of the Society is subjected to

indignities, humiliations and harassment. The assertion of title

over the land by either of the parties is not due to either the

indignities, humiliations or harassment. Every citizen has a

right to avail their remedies in accordance with law. Therefore,

if the appellant or his family members have invoked jurisdiction

of the civil court, or that respondent No.2 has invoked the

jurisdiction of the civil court, then the parties are availing their

remedies in accordance with the procedure established by law.

Such action is not for the reason that respondent No.2 is

member of Scheduled Caste."

Contention of learned counsel for the