Rajesh Khati And Others vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Heard.

Submissions were made on this appeal filed under Section 14-A(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for anticipatory bail. The appellants have been implicated in Crime No.122/2020, registered at police station - Tonkkhurd District Dewas and the offences which have been registered are under Sections 147, 323, 294, 506 and 427 of IPC and under Sections 3(2)(v)(A), 3(1)(F), 3(1)(r) and Section 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Shri Vikas Rathi, learned counsel for the appellant seeks this anticipatory bail in the present case. He has submitted that despite the existence of provisions Sections 18 and 18(A) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the provisions of anticipatory bail are still applicable and for this purpose he has referred to the citation of the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v/s. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 6 SCC 454 and a recent judgment in the case of Prithviraj Chouhan v/s. Union of India, 2020 SCC online SC 159. In the former case it has been laid down that there is no absolute bar against anticipatory bail in the cases under the Atrocities Act and anticipatory bail may be granted if there is no prima facie case is made on independent scrutiny and further that there were malafides on lodging FIR.

Learned counsel for the applicants has taken this court through the facts of the case as per which the FIR which was registered on 29. 5.2020, it has been mentioned that the present applicants had broken open the boundary wall belonging to complainant with a JCB on 23.5.2020 and they have removed the construction material which was lying outside the house and thereafter on 27.5.2020, the second incident took place as per which the applicants came in the night and abused the complainant willfully referring to their caste and thus the present incident contains the narrative pertaining to caste as per the second incident.

Learned counsel has pointed out that the complainant was in fact encroacher and due to encroachment on public way the villagers could not pass through the way which should have been open to all villagers and therefore, prior to 27.5.2020, the applicants had made a written complaint to Naib Tehsildar. A copy of the same is placed on record and panchnama was also drawn on 25.5.2020 which is signed by a number of villagers and even prior to that on 20.5.2020, the written application has been filed by the applicants to Sarpanch Gram Panchayat - Karadia Bhavra. Thus, learned counsel has submitted that when complainant came to know that number of such complaints have been filed against him, he as an after thought lodged an FIR on 29.5.2020 in which he made out a narrative of 27.5.2020 which contains aspersions pertaining to caste. Learned counsel submits that it is the complainant who has not come with clean hands and only thing which had happened on 23.5.2020 involved removal of material which was blocking the path of the appellants and therefore, no prima facie case involving the attraction of SC/ST (P.A.) Act can be made out and further the complaint is malafide because the complainant resorted to the narrative of incident on 27.5.2020 only after he came to know a complaint has been lodged against him by the applicants to the various authorities. On this ground in view of the citations referred to above, the anticipatory bail has been sought.

Learned counsel for the State Mr. Gagan Bajad was heard.

Considered.

The provisions of Section 18 and 18A are restrictive provisions in SC/ST (P.A.) Act prohibiting grant of anticipatory bail in the matters pertaining to this Act. However, in view of the citations of the Apex court referred to above, a window has been kept open and that such anticipatory bail can be allowed if there is no prima facie case and secondly that the complaint is malafide.

A close perusal of all the other documents show quite clearly that the second incident of 27.5.2020 was a result of the complaints which the applicants had lodged before various authorities. Thus, there is substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and in view of the citations of the Apex court, this appeal deserves to be allowed. After due consideration, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application and/or (appeal) is allowed and it is ordered that in the event of arrest of the appellants, they shall be released on bail, on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each with one solvent surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer (I.O.). The appellants shall make themselves available before the Arresting Officer as and when required. They shall further abide by the other conditions as enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

It is made very clear that the observations made in this order shall not be cited or preferred to at the time of final conclusion of the case.

With the aforesaid, the appeal stands allowed and disposed of in above terms.

C.c., as per rules.