Order On Board

12/03/2021 Heard.

1. The aforesaid two bail applications (Cr.A.Nos.992 of 2020 & 23 of 2021) are being disposed off by a common order as both bail applications arise out of the same crime number.

2. The appellants are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.39/2020 registered at Police Station AJAK, District Koriya for the offence punishable under Section 294, 506 of the IPC and Section

3(1)(n,/k ) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (In short “the Act of 1989”). The appellants had applied for grant of anticipatory bail before the Court below, but the Court below rejected bail application of the appellants taking into consideration the bar created under Section 18 of the Act of 1989 and opining that as the allegations against the appellants are of commission of offences not only under IPC, but also under Section

3(1)(n,/k ) of the Act of 1989, the bail application is not maintainable. Aggrieved by this rejection order, the appellants have filed this appeal.

3. Prosecution case is that while the complainant belonging to the Scheduled Tribe category was going on the road, the appellants hurled abuses by using caste words with the remark that the shop of the victim was brought to close.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants would argue that even if entire allegations as contained in the FIR and other submissions are taken as it is, there is no ingredients of commission of offence under Section

3(1)(n,/k ) of the Act of 1989 for want of specific allegation that all this was done for the reason that the victim belonged to Scheduled Tribe Category. He would submit that the allegations do not amount to allegation of the nature that the hurling of abuses was done with an intention to humiliate for the reason that the victim belonged to Scheduled Tribe Category. He would lastly submit that it is a case of trivial dispute, hurling of abuse and threat, for which, other offences, which are bailable offences, registered against the appellants. As prima facie case is not made out for commission of offence under Section

3(1)(n,/k ) of the Act of 1989, bar under Section 18 of the Act of 1989 would not come in the way and the appellants are entitled to benefit of anticipatory bail.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would submit that the complaint clearly shows that while the complainant was going on a road, he was threatened and abuses were hurled and even caste name were also used disclosing that the accused were instrumental in getting the shop closed, taken together, prima facie case of commission of offence is made out against the appellants that all this was done with an intention to humiliate the victim, because he belonged to the Scheduled Tribe Category and that would bar application for grant of anticipatory bail in view of the provisions contained under Section 18 of the Act of 1989.

6. If entire allegations as contained in the FIR is read as it is, it reveals that the appellants hurled abuses to the complainant, though, caste word has been used, on prima facie consideration, it does not show that all this was done because the complainant belonged to Scheduled Tribe Category. There is no allegation that the shop of the complainant was brought to close for the reason that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe Category or that the accused declared that the shop will not be allowed to run by the complainant for the reason that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe Category.

7. The provision contained under Section 3 (2) (v) of the Act had come up for consideration in interpretation of the Supreme Court in the case of Khuman Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 2019 SC 4030). In that case, assault was made on the deceased, who belonged to reserved category. While altering the conviction under Section 302 IPC to that of Section 304 Part-II IPC, conviction under Section 3 (2) (v) of the Act of 1989 was set aside on following consideration :-

“11. The next question falling for