AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. Bhaskar Trivedi, counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant along with Mr. Rahul Dev, Advocate.
Heard Mr. Laxman Kumar, counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2.
This appeal has been filed against the order dated 22.04.2019, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge-VII-cum-M.C.A. (Miscellaneous Criminal
Application) No. 660 of 2019 in connection with S.C./S.T. Case No. 212 of 2018 registered under Sections 4,5,6 of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 324/354/504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and cognizance was taken for the
offence under Sections 323/504 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(i) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 whereby the anticipatory bail application filed by the appellant has been rejected which is now pending in the court of learned
Addl. District Judge-VII, Dhanbad.
Counsel for the appellant submits that the learned court below has rejected the anticipatory bail application of the appellant by referring to Section
18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Learned counsel further submits that the present case is
arising out of malicious prosecution in as much as one complaint was made by the complainant before the police upon which a procedure under
Section 107 Cr. P.C. was instituted and the case was ultimately dropped on 22.04.2018. Learned counsel submits that in the meantime, the complaint
case was filed making allegation against the appellant and others but cognizance has been taken only against the present appellant.
Counsel submits that no case under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is made out against the
appellant and accordingly the learned court below has erred in coming to the conclusion that the anticipatory bail itself is not maintainable.
Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 submits that upon perusal of the complaint petition and the solemn affirmation of the
complaint it appears that at the place of occurrence objectionable language was used against the complainant in presence of the witnesses and
accordingly it cannot be said that no prima-facie case under the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 is made out. It is further submitted that the appellant has refused to pay Rs. 1 lakh as compensation to the complainant as a condition for bail
which has been indicated in the order dated 22.08.2019 passed by this court.
After hearing counsel for the parties and after considering the facts and circumstances of this case and the nature of allegation which has been
levelled against the appellant and from perusal of the solemn affirmation of the complainant it appears that the complainant has alleged use of
objectionable language against the complainant in presence of the witnesses. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that no prima-facie case is
made out against the appellant under the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and accordingly
the order passed by the learned court below rejecting the anticipatory bail of the appellant on the ground that it is not maintainable does not call for any
interference. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
It is made clear that the observation made will have no bearing in the proceedings before the learned court below and the same will not prejudice
the case of the either parties before the learned court below.
The appellant is directed to surrender before the learned court below within 15 days from today and upon surrender if any bail application is filed
along with prayer to consider the bail application on the very same day, it will be duly considered by the learned court below in accordance with law
without being prejudiced by rejection of the appeal.
Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX.