Rajesh Kumar Jain vs State Of M.P. & Another

Present appeal has been filed under Section 14-(A) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the order dated 30.04.2020 passed by Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind, whereby the application of the appellant under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail has been rejected.

Appellant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.93/2020 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, District Bhind, punishable under Section 294 of IPC read with Sections 3(1)(d), 3(1) (k) & 3(2)(V)(a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant - Rajesh Kumar Jain that the appellant has not committed any offence and he has falsely been implicated in the case by the earlier Principal who has been removed from her post and charge has been handed over to the present appellant. At present, appellant is Principal of the College as per Exhibit-P/2. Charge was handed over to the present appellant from the earlier Principal - Anita Jain, due to that enmity, Anita Jain had used some unknown person to file FIR against the present appellant under SC/ST Act. The complainant of this case is neither student of the college nor staff of the college, rather complainant is managed in this case to implicate the present appellant. As the appellant is Principal of college, there is no possibility of committing such offence in college premises. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that in the present matter, no case is made out under Sections 3(1)(d), 3(1)(k) & 3(2)(V)(a) of SC/ST Act as there was no intention of the appellant. In support of his version, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in W.P.(C) No.1015/2018 (Prithviraj Chouhan Vs. Union of India). Hence, prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the appellant looking to the present COVID-19 condition.

Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer and has submitted that offence is registered under Section 294 of IPC read with Sections 3(1)(d), 3(1)(k) & 3(2)(V)(a) of SC/ST Act, therefore, anticipatory bail in the present matter cannot be granted. Hence, prayed to reject the present application of the appellant.

Heard learned counsel for the parties at length through VC and considered the arguments advanced by them and perused the record.

In catena of judgments, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that when offence under SC/ST Act, prima facie, is not made out and if there is no specific averment in the complaint regarding insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate by calling with caste name, anticipatory bail is not barred. It is further held that although there is no scope of critical examination of evidence. At the stage of considering anticipatory bail, consideration of complaint/ FIR or evidence on its phase falue is permissible for considering whether case under SC/ST Act is made out. The bare perusal of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vilas Pandurang Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra [(2012) 8 SCC 795], shows that if the litmus test laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court is satisfied, anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. It is also clear that the Court must satisfy itself that prima facie case under SC/ST Act is not made out and therefore, anticipatory bail can be entertained.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and current COVID-19 situation, without commenting on merits of the case, the application is allowed. It is hereby directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.75,000/-(Rupees Seventy Five Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/ Investigating Officer.

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

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

The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. He shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub-Section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

The applicant will not indulge himself 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 applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;

The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and

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

E-copy  of  this  order  be  sent  to  the  Court  concerned  for compliance as well as e-copy of the order be given to the learned State counsel with a direction to keep the same in the concerned case diary.

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