Order On Board

11/02/2021 This appeal arises out of order dated 18/06/2020 passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocities) Balrampur-Ramanujganj by which, appellants' application for grant of anticipatory bail has been rejected mainly on the ground that bar under Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act of 1989') operated against the appellant.

2. The appellants are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.10/2020 registered at Police Station – Karoundha, District – Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) for alleged commission of offences under Section 451, 506 of IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) (a) of the Act of 1989.

3. A report / FIR was lodged by the complainant against the son of appellant No.1 – Vijay Gupta alleging commission of certain offences and therefore, the appellants forcibly entered the house of the complainant to withdraw the complaint against appellant's son – Jitendra Gupta. On the report, offence under Section 451, 506 of IPC and also Section 3 (2) (v) of the Act of 1989 was registered. The appellant's application for grant of anticipatory bail was moved stating that it is a case of false implication and no prima facie case under Section 3 (2) (v) (a) of the Act of 1989 is made out. The argument was, however, not accepted and the Court below, in view of bar created under Section 18 of the Act of 1989 rejected bail application as not maintainable. It is this order which is under challenge.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that though bar under Section 18 of the Act of 1989 ordinarily operate against maintainability of application for grant of anticipatory bail, but in cases of exceptional nature and as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India and ors., (2020) 4 SCC

727, anticipatory bail could be granted and there is no absolute bar.

He would submit that if the FIR lodged by the complainant, taken on its face value, all that can be said is that the present appellants entered the house of the complainant to threaten her to withdraw the report lodged against son of Vijay Gupta and nothing more. There is no whisper in the complaint that the alleged criminal overt act was committed for the reason that the complainant belongs to scheduled tribe. Therefore, in such a case, bar would not be applicable. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance in the case of Pavas Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh and anr. passed by this Court in Cr.A.No.806/2020. He would next submit that as offence under Section 451 and 506 IPC are bailable in nature, the appellants, at this stage, may be granted bail.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes prayer and submits that there was an incident in which the complainant had made allegations against one – Jitendra Gupta, son of appellant – Vijay Gupta that he outraged her modesty and lodged report but thereafter, it alleged that the appellants came to her house and threatened her of dire consequences if the report is not withdrawn. He submits that it was fully known to the appellants that the complainant belongs to scheduled tribe. Therefore, the act of the appellant in entering into the house and administering threat and compelling to withdraw the complaint would prima facie make out offence not only under Section 451 and 506 of IPC but it would also be an aggravated form of offence under Section 3 (2) (v) (a) of the Act of 1989 because offence under Section 506 IPC is included in the schedule appended to the Act of 1989.

6. The entire complaint / report if read as it is prima facie only reflected upon the allegations that the appellants entered the house of the complainant and threatened her to withdraw the complaint made by her against Jitendra Gupta S/o appellant – Vijay Gupta. In the entire complaint, there is nothing to show that the alleged act of threatening by entering the house of the victim was for the reason that she belong to scheduled tribe. T