The bar under Section 18 of the Atrocities Act will not apply if there is no evidence that the offence was committed only on the ground that the person was a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.

ORAL JUDGMENT .

1.Heard Ms. Arbat (Awathale), learned Counsel for the Appellant, Mr. Rode, learned APP for the Respondent No.1/State and Ms.Kirti Deshpande, learned Counsel (Appointed) for the Respondent No.2.

2. Admit. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

3. The Appellant/Accused has preferred this Appeal under Section 14-A of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter be referred to as ‘the Atrocities Act’), challenging the order dated 8/6/2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, Khamgaon, District Buldhana below Exhibit-1 filed by the Appellant, whereby the prayer of the Appellant for releasing her on anticipatory bail has been rejected.

4. The Appellant is apprehending arrest in Crime No. 228/2022 registered with Police Station Shegaon City, District Buldhana for the offences punishable under Section 323, 324 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short, ‘the Atrocities Act’).

5. I have considered the rival submissions. I have gone through the case papers and the impugned order.

6. The learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the present FIR is counter-blast to the FIR dated 26/5/2022 lodged by the Appellant. He has drawn attention of this Court to the said FIR. She has stated that when she was cleaning utensils in house, her husband Ravindra Palhade and father-in-law were relaxing inside the house. At that time 20-25 men and two women namely, Rina Kailash Ingale (informant in the present FIR) and one another woman Sharda Prakash Shirsat entered the house. These persons were having sticks and iron rods in their hands. They started asking as to who had beaten Rina’s son in the marriage ceremony of Kalore Family. The husband of Appellant informed them that they are not aware of any such quarrel. Thereupon the persons entered assaulted the husband of Appellant on his head with iron rod, resulting in bleeding injury on his head. Her father-in-law so also the Appellant were also assaulted. Accordingly, the FIR came to be lodged against the informant and others vide Crime No. 227/2022 for the offences punishable under Section 452, 324, 354, 143, 147, 323, 504, 427 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

7. Immediately on next date, the informant lodged present FIR stating therein that her son was beaten by some unknown persons in the marriage of Kalore Family. The informant, her son and others with intent to find out as to who has beaten him, were going towards the spot from the road having the house of Appellant. It is alleged that at that time the Appellant and her family members abused the informant by caste in public place. The Appellant and others have also assaulted the informant.

8. Thus, there appears case and counter-case. Nonetheless, the Appellant who has lodged FIR first in time, also indicates of incident of beating to Rina’s son that occurred one day prior to lodging the present FIR. The caste based abuse appears to be on the ground of what had happened one day earlier and is not because the informant belongs to Scheduled Caste.

9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hitesh Verma V/s State of Uttarakhand and Another, (2020) 10 Supreme Court Cases 710 while dealing with the offence under the Atrocities Act has held that all insults or intimidations to a person will not be an offence under the Atrocities Act, unless such insult or intimidation is only on account of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes.

10. Thus, the offence must have been committed against a person on the ground that such person is a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. There is no evidence to show that the offence was committed only on the ground that the informant was a member of Scheduled Caste. Rather, the offence under question appears to be in retaliation to what had occurred one day prior to the incident. In such case, merel