ORAL ORDER

1. The present appeal is filed under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “Atrocities Act”) read with Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appellants accused have prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11204033230184 of 2023 with Limbasi Police Station for the offences punishable u/s 500, 506(2), 114 of the IPC, and u/s

3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Atrocities Act.

2. Learned advocate for the appellants submits that considering the nature of allegations, role attributed to the appellants, the appellants may be enlarged on anticipatory bail by imposing suitable conditions.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Rahul Dave for the original complainant while opposing the bail application, would submit that considering the role of the petitioners, they may not be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

3.1 Joining the hands of learned advocate for the complainant, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State would submit that looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. Upon such submissions, he prays to dismiss the appeal.

4. Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the papers.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case and taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, role attributed to the accused, without discussing the evidence in detail, at this stage, I am inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the appellants for the following reasons : -

(1) The FIR is delayed by two and half months.

(2) Even, after considering what is stated in the FIR alleged to have attracted the offence under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and it does not constitute casteist slur and derogated to a particular caste or said to have been spoken into public place. The only allegation is that the first informant was intimidated and forced to settle the dispute for the earlier FIR and to resign.

(3) From reading of the FIR on its face does not indicate any intention on the part of the appellants to lower down or hamper the complainant regarding his caste.

(4) The case is otherwise for offence punishable u/s 506(2) of the IPC and none of the offences have maximum punishment of more than seven years. Thus, in that circumstances, guidelines issued in the case of Arnesh Kumar v/s. State of Bihar [(2003 (8) SCC 273] reiterated in the case of Md. Asfak Alam Vs. The State of Jharkhand and another reported in 2023 INSC 660 and pursuant to which, Circular No.C.2703/81 issued by this Court shall be followed.

(5) It does not appear that there is an intend to cause alarm t the first informant the threat of death.

(6) There are no criminal antecedents registered against the petitioner.

6. In above consideration, the appellants have made out prima facie case to get the anticipatory bail. This Court is conscious that statutory bar is operating while granting anticipatory bail under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. But looking to the above reasons along with prima facie case, nature and gravity of the accusation and severity of the punishment as well as absence of flight-risk character, behaviour, means and position of the accused as well as non-likelihood of the offence being repeated and taking assistance of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Prithviraj Chauhan vs Union of India, reported in (2020) 4 SCC 727, this is a fit case to exercise jurisdiction. The relevant para is para 11, 32 and 33, which reads as under:-

“11. Concerning the applicability of provisions of Section 438 CrPC, it shall not apply to the cases under the 1989 Act. However, if the complaint does not make out a prima facie case for applicability of the provisions of the 1989 Ac