Manoj vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 5451 MP

 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE

                         Cr.A. No.5070/2021
               (Manoj Vs. State of M.P. and another)
                                                                   -1-
Indore, dated 15/09/2021
      Shri Akash Rathi, learned counsel for the appellant.
      Ms. Seema Maheshwari, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent / State.

This is an appeal under Section 14 (A)(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The appellant has been implicated in Crime No.461/2021 registered at Police Station- Sardarpur, District- Dhar for the offence punishable under Sections 294 and 506 of IPC and Sections 3(2)(va), 3(1)(s) and 3 (1)(t) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

02. As per the prosecution story, on 15.08.2021 at about 07.30 a.m. while complainant -Arjun went to Panchayat Bhavan, Badveli to join flag hoisting function, at that time, Sarpanch-Narsingh, Arjun, Vishal, Manoj and other villagers were also present there. After flag hoisting in Adivasi Mohalla, as the Muram was laid on the road, due to which deputy-Sarpanch started abusing in filthy language. He said that "vkfnoklh HkhyMs rsjk ;gakW D;k dke gS] rw ;gWak ls Hkkx tk" in such manner, he insulted the complainant by using caste words and also threatened saying that if anyone lodges the report at police station, he will kill him. The complainant lodged F.I.R. at police station - Sardarpur. Accordingly, an offence has been registered against the present appellant.

03. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this crime. The appellant is a deputy Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat- Badveli. The complainant was obstructing flag hoisting ceremony HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE

Cr.A. No.5070/2021 (Manoj Vs. State of M.P. and another)

and started fighting with the appellant when the flag was being hoisted. There is no prima rfacie case made out against the appellant, hence, the bar to prefer anticipatory bail under Section 18 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not applicable.

04. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon judgment delivered in the case of Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, (2018) 6 SCC, 454 and Union of India Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2019) SCC OnLine SC 1279 wherein it has been held that Section 18 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not a bar for grant of bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. wherein no prima facie case is made out against the accused. The appellant is permanent resident of district-Dhar, hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant.

05. Per contra, learned panel lawyer for the respondent/State vehementally opposes the appeal petition and prays for rejection of the same by submitting that in the offence under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, there is no provisions for grant of anticipatory bail.

06. After perusal of the case-diary and statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. of the witnesses and other relevant papers available in the case-diary, it reveals that during the incident, the appellant said the complainant-Arjun that "vkfnoklh HkhyMs rsjk ;gakW D;k dke gS] rw ;gkWa ls Hkkx tk". At a public place, the appellant has insulted the complainant by using caste words.

07. The above version of the accused person reflected that he HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE

Cr.A. No.5070/2021 (Manoj Vs. State of M.P. and another)

was specifically mentioning the caste of the complainant person, thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, it cannot be said that prima facie case is not made out in respect of the offence under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, therefore, the reliance placed on Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan and Union of India (supra) is not applicable in the present case.

08. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature and gravity of the allegations and also the fact that prima facie case is made out for applicability of the provisions under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the scope of Section 18 of the the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 r/w Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is such that it creates a specific bar in granting anticipatory bail. At this stage, without commenting upon the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present applicants do not deserve for grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, present criminal appeal is dismissed.

Certified copy as per rules.

(Anil Verma) Judge N.R.

Digitally signed by NARENDRA KUMAR RAIPURIA Date: 2021.09.17 11:11:32 +05'30'