Madhya Pradesh High Court
Virendra Vyas vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 February, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 MP 329
Author: Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
Bench: Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
1 CRA-356-2020
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA-356-2020
(VIRENDRA VYAS AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
6
Jabalpur, Dated : 29-02-2020
Shri Alok Agnihotri, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri S.R. Kushwaha learned P.L. for the respondent/State.
Shri Ankit Saxena, learned counsel for respondent no. 2. Complainant- Kishan Chandra Kori is present in person with Shri Ankit Saxena, Advocate. He has been duly identified by his counsel and his presence is marked. Complainant deposed before this Court that accused/appellants did not insult or intimidate or abuse him by caste.
This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellants under Section 14-A of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for grant of anticipatory bail, being aggrieved by the order dated 03.01.2020 passed by Special Judge (Atrocities) Narsinghpur, District- Narsinghpur, by which, bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of appellants has been dismissed.
The appellants are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.954/2019 registered at Police Station Gadarwara (S.D.O. Gadarwara) District Narsinghpur (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506/34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) & 3(2)(va), of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The complainant is a member of Scheduled Caste Community while the appellants are not member of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes Community.
As per prosecution case, on 05.11.2019 at around 06:00 PM, when the complainant was coming from the Bodhary Ghat, the appellants came there and abused by caste and committed Marpeet with him. Thereafter, o n the report of the complainant, a case has been registered against the present appellants.
Digitally signed by ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Date: 04/03/2020 11:00:472 CRA-356-2020 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants are innocent person and they did not abuse the complainant by caste. They have been falsely implicated in this case. He also submits that except Sections 3(1)
(r), 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act all other offences registered in IPC are bailable in nature. He also submits that there is no material evidence available on record for insulting and abusing the complainant by caste, therefore, prima facie no case is made out against the appellants for committing the offence under the SC/ST Act. H e further submits that in the present case there is no ingredients are available to constitute the offence under Section SC/ST Act. In support of his contention learned counsel for the appellants has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. Subash Kashinath Mahajan Vs. State of the Maharashtra [(2018) 6 SCC 454]. On these grounds, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellants.
Per-contra, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State opposes the anticipatory bail.
I have gone through the case diary of this case as well as record. Before embarking to examine the facts of the case, it would be necessary to read the relevant Section of SC/ST Act under which the appellants made as an accused. The same are reproduced herein under:-
" 3(1)(r)- intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;
3(1)(s)- abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view;
3(2)(v-a) commits any offence specified in the Scheduled, against a person or property, knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with such punishment as specified under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) for such offences and shall Digitally signed by ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Date: 04/03/2020 11:00:47
3 CRA-356-2020 also be liable to fine;"
Sections 323 of the I.P.C. mentioned in the scheduled under Section 3(2)(5-a) of SC/ST Act. These offences are bailable.
Now, this Court has to read the judgment referred by the appellants' counsel in the case of Subhash Kashinath Mahajan (supra) in which the Hon'™ble Supreme Court considered the provision of Section 18 of SC/ST Act and in paras No. 51,52,63,64,65 and 71, observed as under:-
" 51. In view of the decisions in Vilas Pandurang Pawar ((2012)8 SCC 795 and Shakuntla Devi (2014) 15 SCC 795 the learned ASG has rightly stated that there is no absolute bar to grant anticipatory bail if no prima facie case is made out inspite of validity of Section 18 of the Atrocities Act being upheld.
52. In Hema Mishra v. State of U.P., it has been expressly laid down that inspite of the statutory bar against grant of anticipatory bail, a constitutional court is not debarred from exercising its jurisdiction to grant relief. This Court considered the issue of anticipatory bail where such provision does not apply. Reference was made to the view in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. to the effect that interim bail can be granted even in such cases without the accused being actually arrested. Reference was also made to Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab to the effect that jurisdiction under Article 226 is not barred even in such cases.
63. We have already noted the working of the Act in the last three decades. It has been judicially acknowledged that there are instances of abuse of the Act by vested interests against political opponents in panchayat, municipal or other elections, to settle private civil disputes arising out of property, monetary disputes, employment disputes and seniority disputes. It may be noticed that by way of rampant misuse complaints are Âœlargely being filed particularly Digitally signed by ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Date: 04/03/2020 11:00:47
4 CRA-356-2020 against public servants/quasi-judicial/judicial officers with oblique motive for satisfaction of vested interests".
6 4 . Innocent citizens are termed as accused, which is not intended by the legislature. The legislature never intended to use the Atrocities Act as an instrument to blackmail or to wreak personal vengeance. The Act is also not intended to deter public servants from performing their bona fide duties. Thus, unless exclusion of anticipatory bail is limited to genuine cases and inapplicable to cases where there is no prima facie case was made out, there will be no protection available to innocent citizens. Thus, limiting the exclusion of anticipatory bail in such cases is essential for protection of fundamental right of life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
65. Accordingly, we have no hesitation in holding that exclusion of provision for anticipatory bail will not apply when no prima facie case is made out or the case is patently false or mala fide. This may have to be determined by the Court concerned in facts and circumstances of each case in exercise of its judicial discretion. In doing so, we are reiterating a well established principle of law that protection of innocent against abuse of law is part of inherent jurisdiction of the court being part of access to justice and protection of liberty against any oppressive action such as mala fide, arrest. In doing so, we are not diluting the efficacy of Section 18 in deserving cases where court finds a case to be prima facie genuine warranting custodial interrogation and pre-trial arrest and detention.
7 1 . It is thus patent that in cases under the Atrocities Act, exclusion of right of anticipatory bail is applicable only if the case is shown to bona fide and that prima facie it falls under the Atrocities Act and not otherwise. Section 18 does not apply where there is no prima facie case or to cases of patent false implication or when the Digitally signed by ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Date: 04/03/2020 11:00:47 5 CRA-356-2020 allegation is motivated for extraneous reasons. We approve the view of the Gujarat High Court in Pankaj D. Suthar and N.T. Desai. We clarify the judgments in Balothia and Manju Devi to this effect. "
Complainant- Kishan Chandra Kori is present in person. He deposed before this Court that accused/appellants did not insult or intimidate or abuse him by caste. He produced an affidavit in this regard also. So it is doubtful that prima facie material/evidence is available on record in regard to Sections of SC/ST Act, so far as offence under Sections 294, 323, 506/34 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(5-a) are bailable.
F r o m careful reading of the aforesaid Sections and above cited judgment and also looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on merits, this appeal for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellants seems to be acceptable. Hence, it is hereby allowed.
It is directed that appellants-Virendra Vyas and Ajay Shrivastava will surrender themselves before Investigating Officer within 10 days' from the date of receipt of Certified Copy of this order then in the event of arrest, they be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each with one surety in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the arresting Authority.
It is further directed that the appellants shall make themselves available for interrogation by the Police Officer as and when required.
Certified copy as per rules.
Appeal is disposed of.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE MISHRA Digitally signed by ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Date: 04/03/2020 11:00:47