Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jagdish Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 September, 2017
1
Cr.A.No.3173/2017
06/09/2017
Shri Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Amitabh Bharti, learned P.L. for respondent
No.1/State.
Shri Ashish Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant.
Heard with the aid of case diary.
This appeal has been filed under Section 14 (A) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated 10/08/2017 passed by Sessions Judge to the Court of Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Panna, whereby learned Judge rejected the bail application filed by the appellants under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to get anticipatory bail in Crime No.36/2017, registered at Police Station Sunwani, District Panna for the offences under Sections 294, 323, 506/34 of the IPC and Section 3 (2)(5A), 3 (1)(d) & 3(1)(gh) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (hereinafter referred to as "The act"), who apprehends his arrest in the crime.
As per prosecution case, on 26/07/2017 complainant Fundi Prajapati lodged a report at Police Station Sunwani, District Panna to the effect that at about 9:30, when he was returning from field after leaving his cattle there, applicants met him near the pond and on account of some dispute, abused him with insulting words regarding caste and also beat 2 the complainant by a wooden stick. Thereafter, son and wife of the complainant came to rescue him but the applicants beat them also and ran away from the spot.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants have falsely been implicated in the matter. The applicant No.1 is a Government servant and working as Teacher at Government Primary School, Khalond. Moreover, there is no evidence on record to show that the appellants committed the said act against the complainant knowingly that he belonged to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community. Further, the act of the appellants do not come under the purview of the provisions of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. So, the provisions of Section 18 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are not attracted. In this regard, learned counsel placed reliance on a judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No.1710/1998 (Tejsingh Vs. State of M.P.) vide judgment dated 22/08/2016. Hence, counsel prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel for the State opposed the application stating that from the FIR and the statement of the complainant recorded by the Police under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. during investigation, it is clear that at the time of incident, the appellants abused the complainant with insulting words regarding caste. So, prima facie the offence under the provisions of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out. Hence, the provisions of Section 18 of the SC/ST 3 (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are attract. It is prayed that the appeal be dismissed.
Apex Court also in the case of Vilas Pandurang and another V/s. State of Maharashtra and others reported in (2012) 8 SCC 795 held as under :-
"The scope of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act read with Section 438 of the Code is such that it creates a specific bar in the grant of anticipatory bail. When an offence is registered against a person under the provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, no Court shall entertain application for anticipatory bail, unless it prima facie finds that such an offence is not made out. Moreover, while considering the application for bail, scope for appreciation of evidence and other material on record is limited. Court is not expected to indulge in critical analysis of the evidence on record."
This shows that in the crime registered for the offences under Atrocity Act anticipatory bail can be granted when it prima facie finds that such an offence is not made out and while considering the application for bail scope for appreciation of evidence and other material on record is limited. Court is not expected to indulge in critical analysis of the evidence on record.
In the judgement of Tejsingh Vs. State of M.P.(supra) cited by the learned counsel of the appellants, this court after appreciating the evidence of prosecution at the stage of judgment held that offence under section 3(1)(X) of "The act"
is not made out while at the stage of bail this court has no jurisdiction to do critical analysis the evidence on record. Even otherwise that judgement is based on old section 3(1)(X) 4 of "The act", while new section 3(1)(s) of "The act" reads as thus;-
"(s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view"
In the FIR, it is clearly mentioned that at the time of incident, the appellant No.1 said "matherchod kumhar tu jyada badh gaya hai tujhe sudharna padega", while appellant No.2 said "matherchod kumhar aaj to tu bach gaya", which clearly shows that the appellants abused the complainant with caste name. Therefore, prima facie offence under the provisions of "The act" is made out. Hence, the appeal filed by the appellants has no merits and is hereby dismissed.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge as/