Pratima Devi And Ors vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

Heard Mr. Sarvendra Kumar, counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants.

Heard Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party- State.

Nobody appears on behalf of the opposite party no. 2. However, from the records of this case it appears that the service of notice upon opposite

party no. 2 is complete.

This petition has been preferred against the order dated 20.07.2019 passed in A.B.P. No. 80/2019 by learned Addl. Session Judge-I Cum Spl.

Judge Simdega arising out of Simdega SC/ST P.S. Case No. 01/19 registered under Section 452, 379, 506, 504, 323, 109 of I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x)

of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, whereby and whereunder prayer for grant of anticipatory bail in

event of arrest of the appellants has been rejected, which is now said to be pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I Cum Spl. Judge

Simdega.

Counsel for the appellants submits that by the impugned order dated 20.07.2019, the learned court below has refused to entertain the anticipatory

bail application of the appellants by referring to Section 18(A) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The

learned counsel also submits that ex facie no case under the aforesaid provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act, 1989 is made out in view of the fact that it has come during the investigation as recorded in the case-diary at para 22, that the complainant as

well as the appellants, belong to the Scheduled Tribe category. The learned counsel for the appellants further submits that it has been further found in

para 19 of the case-diary that the allegations are untrue.

The learned counsel for the appellants, by referring to the provisions of Section 3(1) of the aforesaid Act of 1989, submits that the offence under

the said Section is attracted only when the allegation is against a person, who is not a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Accordingly,

he submits that the impugned order holding that the anticipatory bail application as not maintainable, may be set-aside.

Counsel for the opposite party- State, on the other hand, does not dispute this fact that for attracting offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the aforesaid

Act of 1989, the accused should not be a member of either Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. However, he submits that the complainant has a right

to file protest petition before the learned court below, if the allegations are said to be untrue and he submits that only for the purposes of anticipatory

bail, it may be observed that the bar under Section 18 of the aforesaid Act of 1989 is not attracted, which may not have any bearing in any further

proceeding before the learned court below.

After hearing the counsel for the parties and considering the case-diary, in particular para 22, as well as the fact that the case has been found to be

untrue during investigation, this Court, only for the purposes of considering the maintainability of the anticipatory bail before the learned court below,

finds that, prima-facie, no case under the provisions of Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

1989 is made out against the appellants and accordingly, the anticipatory bail application filed before the learned court below is maintainable.

This Court further finds that the impugned order was passed on 20.07.2019 and there has been further investigation and the paragraph 19 of the

case-diary whereby the allegation was found untrue is dated 18.09.2019 and para 22 of the case-diary wherein it has been recorded that both the

parties are of scheduled tribe category is dated 10.10.2019.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that no prima facie case under the provisions of Scheduled Castes

and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is made out against the appellants and therefore, the impugned order dated 20.07.2019

passed in A.B.P. No. 80/2019 by the learned Addl. Session Judge-I cum Spl. Judge Simdega, is hereby set-aside. The learned court below is directed

to consider the anticipatory bail of the appellants on merits afresh considering all the further materials also which have been collected during

investigation, as and when the appellants press the same before the learned court below.

It is hereby observed that this finding regarding prima facie case has been made only for the purposes of consideration of maintainability of the

anticipatory bail of the appellants and it will have no bearing on any further proceedings before the learned court below.

This criminal appeal is allowed with the aforesaid observations.

Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below through ‘FAX’.