The Punjab and Haryana High Court observed that as per Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, the soul of the provision is intention and the insult should be intentional and the intimidation should be with intent to humiliate a member of the SC/ST community and further anticipatory bail could be granted if a prima facie case of commission of an offence under the Act is not made out or if it can be shown that the allegations were false.
Brief Facts:
The present appeal was filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 by the appellant challenging the order, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, whereby an application filed by him under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case registered under Sections 147, 149, 323, 341 and 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(c), 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act was dismissed.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of the law as the same has been passed on false and frivolous allegations and the appellant did not know the caste of the complainant at any point of time. It was further contended that the trial Court erred in holding that the application was not maintainable in view of the bar created under Sections 18 and 18-A of the SC/ST Act as these provisions were not applicable in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state argued that there are serious and specific allegations against the appellant. It was further submitted that a prima facie case for the commission of offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC and ST Act had been made out and the trial court had rightly held that the application was not maintainable and thus the appeal does not deserve to be allowed.
Observations of the Court:
The court noted that so far as the allegations of the case falling within the ambit of Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act is concerned, though there are allegations levelled in the FIR that the appellant along with co-accused had hurled caste related abuses to him but the case cannot be stated to be falling within either of the provisions of Section 3 of SC/ST Act. Further, the court referred to the provisions of Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act and stated that the soul of the provision is intention the insult should be intentional and the intimidation should be with intent to humiliate a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. However, the appellant cannot be stated to have abused the complainant within the public view, because as per their own version of the complainant, the appellant and co-accused had abused him in the name of his caste outside the gate of the Govt. School of the village and the possibility of the presence of other persons at the spot at that time making the incident to have happened in public view is obviously very bleak, being wee hours.
Further, it was stated by the court that no prima facie case for the commission of offence punishable under Section 3 of SC/ST Act can be stated to have been made out, thereby attracting the bar under Section 18 of SC/ST Act and further referred to the decision in the case of Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra and Another, wherein it was held that anticipatory bail could be granted if a prima facie case of commission of an offence under the Act is not made out or if it can be shown that the allegations were false.
The decision of the Court:
The court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order.
Case Title: Ankit vs. State of Haryana
Coram: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra
Case No.: CRA-S-3507-2023 (O&M)
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Dheeraj Kumar Narula
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Neeraj Poswal
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
