Order on Board

13.07.2022 Since these two appeals are arising out of the same crime number both are disposed of by this common orders.

2. These appeals under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, (hereinafter referred to as “Special Act”) have been filed against the order dated 12.05.2022 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Korba District Korba, rejecting the application u/s 439 Cr.PC in connection with the Crime No. 54/2022 registered at Police Station Pasaan, District Korba, CG, for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 186, 332 of the IPC and Sections 3 (1)

(द), (ध ) & 3 (2) (v- क) of SC/ST ( Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

3. Case of the prosecution in short is that the present appellants and other accused had hurled filthy abuses at the police personals in the name of their caste and also beaten them.

4. Counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are innocent and have been implicated in a false case. He submits that infact one person namely Deepak Tekam was taken into custody by the police of police station Pasaan, and the appellants in order to ascertain why he was taken into custody, they went to the police station Pasaan. The appellants saw that said Deepak Tekam being beaten by the police officers i.e. Thana Incharge and on being asked why Deepak Tekam is being beaten, Thana Incharge became furious and started beating the appellants and trained the service revolver at them. Somehow the appellants managed to run away with the help of other people present there. The appellants have also made a complaint about this incident to the Superintendent of Police Korba and the Thana Incharge was subsequently, transferred from the police station Pasaan. As a counter blast the alleged FIR has been lodged and initially no overt act was mentioned with regard to commission of crime under the Special Act and subsequently, the offence under the Special Act was incorporated. Since no prima facie case was made out under the Special Act, was mention in the FIR, the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act would not be attracted and the appellants are entailed for anticipatory bail. He relied upon the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2020) 4 SCC 727 in paragraphs 7 & 11 held as under:- “7. This Court in Vilas Pandurang Pawar and Anr. v.

State of Maharashtra and Ors., (2012) 8 SCC 795, has observed thus:

“10. The scope of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act read with Section 438 of the Code is such that it creates a specific bar in the grant of anticipatory bail. When an offence is registered against a person under the provisions of the SC/ST Act, no court shall entertain an application for anticipatory bail, unless it prima facie finds that such an offence is not made out. Moreover, while considering the application for bail, scope for appreciation of evidence and other material on record is limited. The court is not expected to indulge in critical analysis of the evidence on record. When a provision has been enacted in the Special Act to protect the persons who belong to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and a bar has been imposed in granting bail under Section 438 of the Code, the provision in the Special Act cannot be easily brushed aside by elaborate discussion on the evidence.”

“11. Concerning the applicability of provisions of section 438 Cr.PC, it shall not apply to the cases under Act of 1989. However, if the complaint does not make out a prima facie case for applicability of the provisions of the Act of 1989, the bar created by section 18 and 18A (i) shall not apply. We have clarified this aspect while deciding the review petitions.”

5. Learned State counsel submits that the though initially when the FIR was lodged, the offence under the Special Act was not mentioned however, subsequently it was incorporated during the investigation. Therefore, bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act would be attracted and t