Anticipatory bail applications are not maintainable under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act when a prima facie case is established.

JUDGMENT

This is an appeal under Section 14A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (the Act) filed by the petitioners, accused 1 to 3 in Crime No.795/2024, Kasaba Police Station, Kozhikode, aggrieved by the order dated 11/11/2024 in Crl.M.C.No.1965/2024 on the file of the Court of Session, Kozhikode.

2. The aforesaid application for anticipatory bail was filed by the petitioners/accused 1 to 3 under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ( BNSS ). The petitioners/accused 1 to 3 are alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 351(2) r/w 3(5) of the BNS and Sections 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Act. According to the prosecution, the informant, a member of the Scheduled Caste, was a driver of bus bearing registration No. KL-10/AW-3579. On 16/10/2024, at about 09.40 a.m., when the informant was trying to park his bus in the bus stand Kozhikode, the bus bearing registration No.KL-10/BD-3526 entered into the same track. This resulted in a quarrel between the informant and the driver, conductor and cleaner of the other bus, that is, the petitioners/accused 1 to 3 in this case. The petitioners/ accused 1 to 3 are alleged to have wrongfully restrained the informant ; voluntarily caused hurt to him ; spit on his face and humiliated him in public by calling him by his caste name. They are also alleged to have threatened the informant with dire consequences.

3. The trial court by the impugned order dismissed the application in the light of the bar contained under Section 18 of the Act. Aggrieved, the petitioners/accused 1 to 3 have come up in appeal.

4. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants/accused 1 to 3 that the offences alleged against them are all bailable offences. The informant is a complete stranger to the appellants and hence they were unaware that the former belongs to the Schedule Caste community.

5. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that one of the offences alleged against the appellants is under Section 3(1)(s) of the Act, which is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to five years and as per the Schedule to Act, the same is a non bailable offence. He also points out that Section 18 of the Act would make it clear that when prima facie an offence under the Act is made out, an application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable.

5.1. The second respondent/the informant represented by a counsel submitted that the appellants knowing fully well that the former belongs to the Schedule Caste community, spit on his face and abused him in public by calling him his caste name and therefore prima facie an offence under the Act is made out. In the light of Section 18 of the Act, an application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable, goes the argument.

6. Heard both sides.

7. In the light of the allegations raised, an offence under the Act is prima facie made out. The argument that the informant is a complete stranger to the appellants/accused 1 to 3 ; that they never knew that he belonged to the Scheduled Caste community and that he was never abused by his caste name are not matters to be decided at this stage as the same is something which will have to be decided on the basis of evidence adduced at the time of the trial. At this point, the Court need only look whether prima facie a case is made out under the Act. In the light of Section 18 of the Act, the application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable. Therefore, I find no infirmity in the impugned order.

The appeal sans merit is liable to be dismissed and hence I do so.