Mithilesh Kumar Singh vs The State of Jharkhand

S. Chandrashekhar, J.—Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record.

The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with SC/ST P.S. Case No. 17 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. No. 3311 of 2013 registered under Sections 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Vide order dated 26.06.2014 taking note of the contention of the counsel for the applicant that since the alleged occurrence took place in the chamber of the complainant and she has not stated the name of any witness it cannot be said that the offence as alleged was committed in "public view" and thus, offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is made out, notice was issued to the opposite party no. 2 and interim protection was granted to the applicant.

Mr. Sunil Kumar, the learned counsel has appeared for opposite party no. 2. He relies on a decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Vilas Pandurang Pawar and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, and submits that there is a specific bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act and therefore, the present anticipatory bail application cannot be entertained by this Court. He relies on paragraph no. 10 and 13 of the said judgment which is extracted below:

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 Act, no court shall entertain an 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. The court is not expected to indulge in critical analysis of the evidence on record. When a provision has been enacted in the Special Act to protect the persons who belong to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and a bar has been imposed in granting bail under Section 438 of the Code, the provision in the Special Act cannot be easily brushed aside by elaborate discussion on the evidence.

In view of the above discussion and in the light of the specific averments in the complaint made by the complainant Respondent 3 herein, we are of the view that Section 18 of the SC/ST Act is applicable to the case on hand and in view of the same, the petitioners are not entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code. Accordingly, the special leave petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the present conclusion is confined only to the disposal of this petition and the trial court is free to decide the case on merits.

The learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 has further submitted that the alleged occurrence has taken place in a hospital and thus, it is presumed that the offence was committed in "public view".

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant refers to Section 3(1)(x) of the of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and submits that since the offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant is under the provisions of a Special Act and in the Act a special provision under Section 18 has been incorporated for not entertaining the anticipatory bail application, the provisions of the Act has to be read literally and strictly. The Court is not permitted to add or omit a word which the legislature did not intend while drafting a particular enactment. A bare perusal of provision under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 clearly indicates that only when the alleged act has been committed intentionally to insult or intimidate with intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes in any place within "public view", the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 can be said to have been committed. It is further submitted that from a bare perusal of the written complaint given to the police by the informant it appears that on 08.06.2013, the alleged offence took place inside the chamber of the informant. The informant has nowhere stated that the applicant had intentionally insulted or humiliated her in "public view" or in front of public. No one has been named by the informant as the person who has witnessed the alleged occurrence. The learned counsel for the applicant has also relied on paragraph 10 of the judgment in Vilas Pandurang Pawar and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, .

The learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the applicant is working on a Class III post whereas, the informant is the wife of an Ex-Director General of Police who was later on elected as a Member of Parliament and became the Minister in the Union of India and thus, it is unbelievable that a Class III employee would have dared to insult the informant in the manner as alleged in the present case. The present case has been lodged to harass and humiliate the applicant. The narration of events in the written report discloses commission of offence over a period of time however, no complaint to the police was made earlier.

The learned A.P.P. opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.

From the judgment in Vilas Pandurang Pawar and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, , I find that the Hon''ble Supreme Court has, in the context of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, held that if prima facie the Court finds that the offence as alleged is not made out, application under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code is maintainable. From the materials on record I find that the learned counsel for the applicant has rightly pointed out that the informant has failed to aver in the complaint that the alleged occurrence took place in "public view". The offence as alleged on 08.06.2013 occurred in the chamber of the applicant. It is thus seen from a bare reading of the written complaint that the offence under Section 3(1)(X) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not made out.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, interim order dated 26.06.2014 is made absolute and it is ordered that in the event of arrest of the applicant or if he surrenders before the trial court within four weeks from today the applicant namely, Mithilesh Kumar Singh would be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri S.N. Bara, Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi or his successor in connection with SC/ST P.S. Case No. 17 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. No. 3311 of 2013.

Let a copy of this order be sent through FAX to the concerned trial court on depositing the cost by the applicant.