The court granted anticipatory bail, finding no prima facie intent to insult based on caste, allowing for the possibility of false implication in a dispute over agricultural land.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Learned APP and learned counsel for the respondent no.2 opposed the appeal.

2. This is an appeal for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 17/07/2023 rejecting the anticipatory bail application of the appellant passed by the trial Court in connection with C.R. No. 215 of 2023 registered with Jejuri police station, Pune for the offences punishable under sections 326, 324, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under sections 3(1)(r) & 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, “the Atrocities Act”). The date of the FIR is 07/06/2023. The date of the incident is 07/06/2023. This Court vide order dated 11/08/2023 granted interim protection to the appellant. The relevant portion of the said order reads thus :

“2. By this appeal, preferred under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the appellant seeks his enlargement on bail in connection with C.R. No.215 of 2023, registered with the Jejuri Police Station, Pune, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 326, 324, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short SC/ST Act).

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the dispute between the parties is of civil nature and it is out of this dispute that the incident in question took place on 7th June 2023. She submits that the respondent no. 2 (original complainant) had borrowed money from the appellant in 1997 and accordingly the complainant kept his land with the appellant, in lieu thereof. Visarpavti was also issued by the complainant in favour of the appellant.

4. It appears that there are several cases, both criminal and civil pending between the parties interse. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the incident took placed on 7th June 2023, when he had informed that the respondent no. 2 had trespassed into his property, pursuant to which the incident took place. She submits that taking the prosecution case as it stands no offences under the SCST Act are disclosed and as such, the bar of section 18 of the SCST Act would not apply. She submits that initially an offence was registered under section 324, however, subsequently, section 326 came to be added.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 opposed the grant of interim relief. He states that he has filed an intervention application. Since we have impleaded respondent no. 2 as party respondent in the aforesaid appeal, liberty is granted to the learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 to file an afÏdavit in reply, if he so desires.

3. The incident in question happened in an agricultural field which according to the respondent no.2 was encroached systematically by the appellant. It is the case of the respondent no.2 that for the past 20 years, the appellant is trying to encroach the respondent no.2’s agricultural field. On the other hand, it is the case of the appellant that he is in possession of the portion which the respondent no. 2 claims to be his on the basis of valid and subsisting agreement in his favour. The suit for specific performance is pending before the Civil Court, Pune filed by the appellant against the respondent no.2. On the date of the incident, the respondent no.2 was informed that the agricultural field on which he claims ownership was being dug up by the appellant for the purpose of constructing a road. Respondent no.2 therefore went to the spot and questioned the appellant. It is alleged that the appellant assaulted the respondent no.2 with plastic pipe, fist and kick blows.

4. According to learned APP and learned counsel for the respondent no.2, respondent no. 2 suffered injuries, one of which is loss of tiny fragment of left dentral incisor teeth causing tiny U shaped defect. The impression reported by the Department of Radiodiagnosis and Ima