Pahalwan Dhakad & Ors. vs State Of M.P. & Anr.

I.A. No. 11081/2020, an application for urgent hearing, is taken up, considered and allowed for the reasons mentioned therein.

Present appeal has been filed under Section 14-(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (in short

“SC/ST Actâ€) against the order dated 23/7/2020 passed by Special Judge (Atrocities), Guna, whereby the application of the appellants under

Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail has been rejected.

Appellants are apprehending their arrest for the alleged offences registered at Crime No.125/2020 at Police Station Bamori (AJK), District Guna,

punishable under Sections 323, 294, 506 and 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 (1) (r), 3 (1) (s) and 3 (2) (v-a) of the SC/ST Act.

Learned counsel for the appellants - Pahalwan Dhakad, Shrichand Dhakad and Sunil Dhakad submits that the appellants have not committed any

offence and they have been falsely implicated. Investigation and thereafter trial will take its own time. It is further submitted that even if the

prosecution case is accepted in toto, no offence under the SC/ST Act is made out against the appellants and remaining sections of IPC are bailable. In

support of his submission, learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court on 10/2/2020 in the case of

Prithvi Raj Chauhan vs. Union of India, W.P. (Civil) No.1015/2018 . Hence, prayed to grant benefit of anticipatory bail to the appellants.

Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent No. 2 opposed the prayer and submitted that the offence is registered under Sections

323, 294, 506 and 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 (1) (r), 3 (1) (s) and 3 (2) (v-a) of the SC/ST Act. The complainant of this case belongs to Scheduled

Caste and there are sufficient ingredients in the FIR attracting offence under the SC/ST Act, therefore, the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in

the case of Prithvi Raj Chauhan (supra) is not applicable in this case. Hence, prayed to reject this criminal appeal.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

The Supreme Court in the case of Prithvi Raj Chauhan (Supra) has held as under:-

“10. Concerning the applicability of provisions of section 438 Cr. PC, it shall not apply to the cases under Act of 1989. However, if the complaint does not make out

a prima facie case for applicability of the provisions of the Act of 1989, the bar created by section 18 and 18A (I) shall not apply. We have clarified this aspect while

deciding the review petitions

In view of above and considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on merits of the case, this criminal appeal is

allowed. It is hereby directed that in the event of arrest, appellants - Pahalwan Dhakad, Shrichand Dhakad and Sunil Dhakad shall be released on

bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rs. Seventy Five Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount to

the satisfaction of the Arresting Office (Investigating Authority).

This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the appellants :-

The appellants will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by them;

The appellants will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;

The appellants will not indulge themselves in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to

dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;

The appellants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused;

The appellants will not move in the vicinity of complainant party and appellants will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and

The appellants will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.

Certified copy/E-copy as per rules/directions.