A definitive finding on prima facie evidence is mandatory for rejecting anticipatory bail in cases under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes Act.

1. The accused - appellant has filed this appeal under Section S.14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "the Act") against the impugned order dated 12.01.2017 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities) Panna in Bail Application No.52/2017, whereby the learned Special Judge dismissed an application filed by the accused - appellant under S.438 of the Cr.P.C.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case for adjudication of this appeal are that on 13.12.2016 at about 7:48 p.m. complainant - respondent No.2 Ranjeet Kumar Kori made an oral FIR at Police Station Shahnagar of Panna district stating that on the self - same day at about 5:30 p.m., he and his wife were standing nearby the house of one Mama Panda situated in village Devri. At that time, accused - appellant Chhaila Shukla approached him, abused him by saying "Madarchod" and asked him as to why he had not given him a lift on his motorcycle on previous day. Thereafter, he started beating him with a stick. As a result, he sustained an injury in his left hand. He ran away from the place of occurrence towards the school of the village, wherefrom he informed his father Premlal on his mobile - set regarding the incident. Thereupon, his father Premlal, mother Kanibai and brothers namely, Rajkumar and Sunil came there to rescue him. Meanwhile, the accused - appellant came over there and he hurled filthy abuses at his father Premlal. He also committed marpeet with the stick with his parents and brothers. As a result, they sustained injuries on various parts of their persons. Upon the oral report, the police recorded an FIR and registered a case against the accused - appellant at Crime No.264/2016 under S.323, S.294, S.506 of the IPC and 3(1) (r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Act.

3. The accused - appellant filed an application under S.438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail before the learned Special Judge (Atrocities) Panna. Vide the impugned order, the learned Special Judge dismissed the application, stating that the police registered the case against him for the offences punishable under the Act in addition to the offences punishable under the IPC. Consequently, the bar of S.18 of the Act comes into play, which prohibits the grant of pre - arrest bail.

4. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the accused - appellant has filed this appeal.

5. The learned counsel for the accused - appellant submits that the bar of S.18 of the Act comes into effect in the present case when the learned Special Judge has arrived at a factual conclusion on the basis of the materials available before him that there is prima facie evidence against the accused - appellant that he has committed the offences punishable under the Act. However, the learned Special Judge has not given a definitive finding in this regard and dismissed the bail application on a superficial level. He submits that the approach of the learned Special Judge in deciding the bail application is highly unjust and improper. As a result, the accused - appellant has become a victim of miscarriage of justice. After referring to the contents of the FIR, he submits that the genesis of the incident is not caste - based and that the complainant - respondent No.2 has not stated overtly or covertly in the FIR that the accused - appellant has humiliated him by hurling caste based abuses and he committed marpeet with him and his aforesaid family members because they belong to the scheduled caste community. He submits that complainant - respondent No.2 has first time stated in his case diary statement that the accused - appellant