The court held that allegations under the SC/ST Act require intentional insult related to caste, which was not established in the complaint.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 31st day of May, 2023 The appellant, a senior teacher in the L.P School, Irimbupalam is the sole accused in Crime No.196 of 2023 registered for offences punishable under Sections 354 B and 294(b) of IPC and Sections 3(1)(s), 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.

2. The crime is registered based on the second respondent's complaint that she was humiliated and intimidated by the appellant and an attempt made to disrobe her by pulling the shawl of her dress, thereby outraging her modesty. Even though appellant approached the Special Court seeking anticipatory bail, that application was dismissed finding the offences under the SC/ST (PoA) Act have been prima facie made out and hence, the prohibition under Section 18A of the Act being applicable. Hence, this appeal.

3. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the allegations are patently false and ill-motivated. It is submitted that, even though the second respondent was not appointed in the LP School in any capacity, she was managing the affairs of the school, at the behest of the Headmaster. On the appellant was being transferred and appointed as permanent teacher in the school, he questioned the role of the second respondent. This resulted in to the second respondent becoming inimical towards the appellant. Due to her animosity, the second respondent initially submitted Annexure I complaint on 16.02.2023 stating that, on 15.02.2023 evening, the appellant had abused and intimidated her. On being advised that the allegations in Annexure I are not sufficient to attract the offences under the SC/ST (PoA) Act, the second respondent gave a statement to the police on 21.02.2023 wherein, for the first time, she alleged that, on 15.02.2023, the appellant had humiliated and intimidated her and had attempted to disrobe her. The manner in which the second respondent improvised on her earlier complaint, by itself, is sufficient indication of the falsity of the allegations. It is contended that merely by reason of a person belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe being abused, offences under the SC/ST (PoA) Act will not be attracted. For that, the insult or intimidation should be for the reason that the de facto complainant is a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Relying on the decision inArul P.Sugathan and others v. State of Kerala and another [2021 (1) KHC 126], it is contended that Section 18A is not an absolute bar against grant of anticipatory bail and if no prima facie case is made out or if the complaint is found to be prima facie mala fide, the court can grant pre-arrest bail. Referring to the decision in Sri Gulam Mustafa v. State of Karnataka and another [2023 LiveLaw (SC) 421], it is contended that while instituting the FIR invoking provisions of a very stringent statute like the SC/ST (PoA) Act, the officers are duty bound to be vigilant and should be satisfied that the provisions they seek to invoke prima facie apply to the case at hand.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, after detailed investigation, a report was submitted before the Special Court for deleting the offences under Sections 354B and 294(b) IPC and Sections 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (PoA) Act and to continue the investigation with respect to the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act. It is contended that, even with respect to the offence under Section 3(1)(r), the prohibition under Section 18A would apply and therefore, the prayer for pre-arrest bail is liable to be rejected.

5. Learned Counsel for the second respondent submitted that the appellant is an influential person, as would be evident from the deletion of all offences other than the offence under Section 3(1)(r). It is contended that the seriousness of the allegations should deter this Court from granting anticipatory bail. The allegation being that the appellant had humiliated the second respondent, a person belon