Anticipatory bail can be granted despite statutory bars if allegations do not establish a prima facie case under the relevant act.

1. Heard.
This appeal is directed against order dated 6.8.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Jashpur (CG), whereby appellants'' application for grant of anticipatory bail has been rejected.

2. The appellants are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 145 of 2020 registered in Police Station - Patthalgaon, District - Jashpur (CG), for alleged commission of offence under S.294, S.506, S.323, S.147, IPC and S.3 (1) (n) and 3 (2) (vd) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 .

3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant lodged report in the police station alleging that when they were passing through the road, they were obstructed and stopped by the appellants, threatened, abused and assaulted. Learned Court below found that as the complainant belongs to Scheduled Tribe category, the appellants are not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants would argue that in the present case, appellants are alleged to have committed offence under S.294, S.506, S.323, S.147, IPC which are all bailable in nature, but only in order to somehow harass the appellants, without any material, offence under S.3 (1) (n) [3 (1) (r)] and 3 (2) (vd) [3 (2) (va)] of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "the Act ") have been registered against the appellants. He would argue that even if the entire allegations and the background of dispute as stated in the FIR is taken on its face value, neither offence under S.3 (1) (r) of the Act is made out nor S.3 (2) (va) of the Act is made out. Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the sum total of allegation is that when the victim were going on the road, they were intercepted and it is alleged that they were threatened, abused and assaulted by the present appellants. There is nothing in the statement that this was an act of intentional intimidation or insult with intent to humiliate the victim in any place within public view. Every insult or intimidation would not amount to commission of offence unless there is clear statement that all this was done only for the reason that the victim belonged to member of SC / ST. Therefore, it is submitted that the criminal overt act of the appellants would not come in the purview of S.3 (1) (r) of the Act.

5. With regard to allegation of commission of offence under S.3 (2) (va) of the Act, it has been argued that the same principle is applicable when the offence scheduled under the Act are alleged to have been committed for the reason that victim belonged to reserved category. He submits that present is a simple dispute of passing through a particular land which is being objected. The appellants first lodged FIR at 10:30 a.m. on 19.7.2020 against the complainants of the present case alleging that they have created obstruction on the road and are not allowing the appellants to use the road for movement and two hours thereafter, as counter case, the complainant of the present case have lodged report. Therefore, no case of commission of offence under S.3 (1) (r) or 3 (2) (va) of the Act is made out.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the bail application by submitting that the present is a case where the victim were known to the appellants as members of the Scheduled Tribe and even then, the appellants obstructed them, abused, intercepted and intimidated. Therefore, there is prima facie material to presume that all this was done intentionally to humiliate them in a place within publi