Bishwajeet Kumar Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989, feeling aggrieved with the order dated 03/02/2020, passed in B.A. No.01/2020 by Special Judge [SC/ST(PA) Act], District Rajgarh, whereby the prayer for anticipatory bail has been declined.

Appellant apprehends his arrest in connection with crime No.30/2020, registered at Police Station-AJK Pachore, District Rajgarh in relation to offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506, 34 of IPC, 1860 along with Section 3(1)(R-S), 3(2)(v-a) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 (for short 'The Act').

As per prosecution story complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste community and he lodged FIR on 24/01/2020 alleging that he is working as a driver in RITES Ltd., a Government of India Enterprise constituted for electrification of railway lines. On 20/01/2020 at about 10.30 am the appellant came to the complainant and asked to drive the vehicle for him, however, the complainant refused by saying that he is driving vehicle for his boss so he would not go with the appellant. Therefore, the appellant hurled filthy language and called him by the name of his caste with intend to intentionally insult and humiliate him as the complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste community. Further allegation is that the appellant assaulted the complainant due to which he sustained injuries and he also threatened to kill the complainant. On the basis of the aforesaid report FIR bearing crime No.30/2020 has been registered against the appellant.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is a electrical engineer in RITES Ltd., a Government of India Enterprise constituted for electrification of railway line and presently he is posted in Pachor for execution of electrification of railway line between Vijaypur to Makshi. It is further submitted that the complainant has taken loan from the appellant and he was not returning the amount. When the appellant asked to repay the loan amount, the complainant made a false complaint, after three days of the alleged incident. It is further submitted that the complainant is in habit of misbehaving with other officers also. A written complaint was also made by other colleague Shri J.J. Sharma and on 22/01/2020 a note sheet was also forwarded to RITES Ltd. for taking disciplinary action against the complainant, therefore, as a counter blast, he has lodged false complaint against the appellant.

It is also submitted that from the averments made in the FIR as well as in the statement of the witnesses, prima-facie no offence is made out against the appellant under 'The Act'. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2018)6 SCC 454 and the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan vs. Union of India, reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 159 in support of his submissions. The appellant is ready to co-operate with the investigation and there is no apprehension of his absconsion or tampering with the evidence if the appellant is released on anticipatory bail. Under these circumstances, counsel prayed for bail to the appellant.

Learned Panel  Lawyer  for  the  respondent/State  opposes  the application by contending that the complainant has made specific allegation against the appellant that he abused the complainant in the place of public view by using derogatory words related to his caste with a view to intentionally insult and humiliate him, therefore, prima-facie offence punishable under 'The Act' is made out against the appellant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has recalled the directions issued in the judgment of Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan (Supra) vide order dated 01/10/2019 passed in Review Petition (Cr.) 228/2018. In the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan (Supra), Hon'ble Apex Court observed that according to Section 18 of 'The Act' grant of anticipatory bail is barred when prima facie offence is made out against a person under the provisions of 'The Act'. Therefore the present application is not maintainable, hence counsel prayed for rejection of the application.

After considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that in the written complaint as well as in the statement of the complainant and other prosecution witnesses recorded by the Police there are specific allegation against the appellant that he hurled abuses and also called the complainant in the place of public view in the name of his caste with a view to insult and humiliate him, hence, prima-facie offence punishable under Sections of 'The Act' is made out against the appellant. Therefore, the bar under Section 18 of 'The Act' for grant of anticipatory bail, is attracted in the present case. Thus the present appeal filed by the appellant is hereby dismissed and the appellant is directed to surrender himself before the competent Court and move an application for grant of regular bail.

Accordingly Cr.A. No.1423/2020 stands dismissed.