Pradeep Patel (Kurmi) vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Heard on this appeal for anticipatory bail under S ction 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, filed

on behalf of the ppellant Pradeep Patel (Kurmi) in crime no.242/2018 registered by .S. Kotwali Narsinghpur (M.P.) under Sections 456, 353, 354-A of

the IPC and Sections 3(1)(W)(i), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

As per prosecution case, t bout 8 pm on 21.04.2018, when the prosecutrix who is a major, married woman was alone at home, appellant Pradeep

entered her house and caught hold of her from behind. He was trying to force himself upon her. When the prosecutrix aised alarm and ran out of her

house, her husband came and accosted the appellant but he ran away from the spot.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the case. In fact, at the time of the incident, he had gone to

the house of the prosecutrix to recover the amount due by the husband of the prosecutrix to the appellant. He further submits that the appellant runs a

grocery shop and husband of the prosecutrix had run up a bill of Rs.12,000/- for the recovery whereof, he had gone to the husband of the prosecutrix

but he refused to repay the amount and beat him with a brick. As a result, he sustained injuries to his head and cheek, resulting in bleeding. The First

Information Report of that incident was lodged within 4 hours at about 12 a.m.. When Husband of the prosecutrix learnet that FIR has been lodged

against him, he got his wife to lodge an FIR against the appellant.

Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State and learned counsel for the objector on the other hand have opposed the bail application.

The Supreme Court has held in the case of Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan vs. State of Maharashtra (Cr.A.No.416/2018 dated 20th March, 2018) as

follows:

Accordingly, we direct that in absence of any other independent offence calling for arrest, in respect of offences under the Atrocities Act, no

arrest may be effected, if an accused person is a public servant, without written permission of the appointing aut ority and if such a person is not a

public servant, without written permission of the Senior Superintendent of Police of the District. Such permissions must be granted for recorded

reasons which must be served on the person to be arrested and to the concerned court. As and when a person arrested is produced before the

Magistrate, the Magistrate must apply his mind to the reasons recorded and further detention should be allowed only if the reasons recorded are found

to be valid. To avoid false implication, before FIR is registered, preliminary enquiry may be made whether the case falls in the parameters of the

Atrocities Act and is not frivolous or motivated.

Consideration of present case

As far as the present case is concerned, we find merit in the submissions of learned amicus that the proceedings against the appellant are liable to

be quashed.

Conclusions

Our concl sions are as follows:

i) Proceedings in the present case are clear abuse of process of court and are quashed.

ii) T ere is no absolute bar against grant of anticipatory bail in cases under the Atrocities Act if no prima facie case is made out or where on judicial

scrutiny the complaint is found to be prima facie mala fide. We approve the view taken and approach of the Gujarat High Court in Pankaj D Suthar

(supra) and Dr. N.T. Desai (supra) and clarify the judgments of this Court in Balothia (supra) and Manju Devi (supra);

ii) In view of acknowledged abuse of law of arrest in cases under the Atrocities Act, arrest of a public servant can only be after approval of the

appointing authority and of a non-public servant after approval by the S.S.P. which may be granted in appropriate cases if considered necessary for

reasons recorded. Such reasons must be scrutinized by the Magistrate for permitting further detention.

iv) To avoid false implication of an innocent, a preliminary enquiry may be conducted by the DSP concerned to find out whether the allegations make

out a case under the Atrocities Act and that the allegations are not frivolous or motivated.

v) Any violation of direction (iii) and (iv) will be actionable by way of disciplinary action as well as contempt.

The above directions are prospective.

As such, the scope for grant of anticipatory bail has been considerably widened. Therefore, in view of the submissions made by learned counsel for

the appellant, it would be appropriate to dispose of this appeal for anticipatory bail with following directions:

A preliminary enquiry shall be conducted by t e DSP concerned to find out whether the allegations make out a case under the Atrocities Act and that

the allegations are not frivolous or motivated.

The appellant shall not be arrested before approval by the S.S.P., which may be granted if deemed appropriate and necessary for reasons to be

recorded. Such reasons shall be scrutinized by the Magistrate for permitting further detention.

Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of with aforesaid directions.

Certified copy as per rules.