ORDER [ENTITY], J.
1. The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail as he has been summoned vide order dated 9-2-2001 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, [ENTITY] to face trial under [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION], [ACT] read with [SECTION] of the [ACT] (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and [SECTION] of the [ACT] (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1955') in complaint filed by [ENTITY] against him.
2. The facts which emerge from the complaint filed by [ENTITY] are that he belongs to Balmiki caste and is gainfully employed as a labourer. On 8-10-2000, he along with [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] was standing in front of his house located in village Shergarh, Tehsil [ENTITY] when accused came there on his scooter. After stopping his scooter, the petitioner abused him by calling him "Kutya Chuhria " and further threatened to murder him, [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] asked the accused not to say so and thereafter the accused ran away from there on his scooter stating "Kutya Chuhria Tenu Dekhanga." Soon after the complainant, went to the Police Post, Gulzarpura Tharwa and lodged Daily Diary Report No. 4 dated 8-10-2000. When no action was taken by the Police, he approached the S.H.O., Police Station, Patran, the D.S.P., [ENTITY] and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala but without any result. Thereafter a Panchayat was also convened on 9/10-11-2000 where the 'accused admitted the above mentioned occurrence and felt sorry before the members of the Panchayat. As no action had been taken by the Police and the accused had insulted and defamed the complainant before the general public including the aforesaid witnesses, the present complaint was filed.
3. To support the facts stated in the complaint, [ENTITY] appeared as CW-1. In addition, he examined [ENTITY] as CW-2 and [ENTITY] as CW-3. He also produced the Daily Diary Report No. 4 dated 8-10-2000. Taking into account the evidence led by the complainant, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, [ENTITY] summoned the petitioner-accused to face trial under [SECTION] of the Act and [SECTION] of the Act of 1955 besides offences under [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION], [ACT]
4. The petitioner-accused sought anticipatory bail which was rejected by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala as per order dated 12-9-2001 primarily for the reason that the facts stated in the complaint involved the commission of crime under [SECTION] of the Act and in view of the provisions of [SECTION] of the Act, concession of anticipatory bail could not be extended to the petitioner. It is, thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking anticipatory bail.
5. Learned counsel representing the petitioner-accused, while pressing for bail, has made manifold submissions before me. Firstly, that no mention has been made in the complaint that at the time of commission of crime, the petitioner was aware that the complainant belonged to Balmiki caste which has been notified as Scheduled Caste. Secondly, that complaint had been filed by the complainant in order to seek revenge from the petitioner because in the month of August, 2000 a theft of 10 ceiling fans from the building of school was committed in village Shergarh and the petitioner, who was Lambardar of the village, had reported the matter to the Police and during the investigation involvement of the complainant in several cases was found and case bearing FIR No. 101 dated 27-6-1994 was already pending against him besides the proceedings initiated under [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the [ACT] (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') as per report No. 13 dated 2-11-2000 and another proceedings were initiated under [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the Code vide report No. 6 dated 17-8-2000. Thirdly, that the facts stated in the case do not disclose the commission of offence at all because inherently improbable version had been stated therein.
6. Opposing the submissions made it has been contended by learned State counsel as well as learned counsel representing the complainant that the petitioner was fully aware of the caste of the complainant as he is the Lambardar of the village and is supposed to know every resident of the village not only by name but also by caste and thus non-mentioning of this fact in the complaint is of no consequence. Additionally, it was contended that as the offences have been committed by the petitioner against the complaint, who belongs to Scheduled Caste community, he is not entitled to seek anticipatory bail in view of the express bar contained in [SECTION] of the Act.
7. In order to decide the controversy raised notice has to be taken of the relevant provisions of [SECTION] of the Act which reads as under :-
3. Punishments for offences of atrocities- (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,-
(i) to (ix) xx xx xx xx xx xx xx;
(x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;
(xi) to (xv) xx xx xx xx xx xx xx;
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine.
8. [SECTION] of the Act further lays down as follows :-
18. [SECTION] of the Code not to apply to persons committing an offence under the Act- Nothing in [SECTION] of the Code shall apply in relation to any case involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of having committed an offence under this Act.
9. Reading of the above provisions would clearly show that in order to bring the case within the ambit of [SECTION] of the Act, the following ingredients must subsist:-
(i) the act attributed should amount intentional insult or intimidation;
(ii) it should be done with intent to humiliate;
(iii) it should be directed against a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe;
(iv) the act attributed should have taken place in public view.
10. In [PRECEDENT] a petition was filed under [SECTION] of the Code to quash the charge-sheet and dismiss the complaint filed under [SECTION] of the Act and under [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION], [ACT] which was pending in the Court of Sessions Judge, Bangalore City. One of the grounds on which quashing was sought was that the petitioner was not aware of the fact that the complainant belonged to Scheduled Caste. Answering the question it was observed in paras 9 and 10 of the judgment as under:-
9. The Division Bench of this Court in Cr. A. [SECTION] of 1994, [PRECEDENT], held following the decision of the Supreme Court reported in [PRECEDENT] that since no evidence was placed before the Court that the accused was conscious of the fact that the act was committed knowing the victim belongs to Scheduled Caste, the act would not apply to the facts of that case and the accused will have to be acquitted of the offence punishable under [SECTION] of the Act.
10. From the reading of the complaint or the statements of the witnesses cited by the prosecution, nowhere it is stated that the petitioner was aware of the fact that the complainant belonged to Scheduled Caste. Admittedly, the petitioner was a stranger to that office. From the statement of the peon attached to the Chamber of the complainant it is clear that he had seen him for the first time on that particular day. It is true that the petitioner is practising as a Chartered Accountant and went to the Chamber to submit the accounts of his clients. Unless it is made out that the petitioner was aware of the fact that the complainant belonged to that caste and with an intention to insult him, he used that word, it cannot be said that there is mens rea on the part of this petitioner to insult him by calling that name. Therefore, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, none of the requirements of [SECTION] is satisfied in this case.
11. The same question again came up in [PRECEDENT], wherein it was observed that the allegation against the accused was that he had insulted the complainant in the name of his caste but on facts the accused had no knowledge that the complainant belonged to the Scheduled Caste. For that reason accused was not held guilty of the offence under [SECTION] of the Act.
12. The above observations were no doubt made in the cases where the accused had undergone trial but the principle laid down cannot be ignored in the present case as well. Admittedly in the complaint filed by the complainant nothing had been stated by the complainant that at the time of committing the crime the petitioner-accused was aware that the complainant belonged to Balmiki Caste which had been notified as Scheduled Caste. Even in the statement of the complainant and other witnesses recorded nothing had been stated in this regard. Therefore, prima facie the essential ingredients of [SECTION] of the Act are missing and for that reason bar of [SECTION] of the Act would not apply.
13. In fairness to the counsel for the petitioner, reference was also made to the case [PRECEDENT], wherein allegations against the petitioner-accused in that case were that he had called [ENTITY], Municipal Councillor of Rajpura as "chuhra" besides imputing other allegations after the initial utterances were made by [ENTITY]. On the basis of these facts the Hon'ble Judge came to the conclusion that serious debatable issues were likely to arise during the trial of the case and whether the bar of [SECTION] of the Act would not be attracted eventually has to be decided after the conclusion of the trial. Under these circumstances, the anticipatory bail was allowed to the petitioner.
14. In [PRECEDENT], the facts were that there was dispute over the possession of land. The Harijan party and the opponent party were fighting litigation in Court. FIR No. 60 dated 31-10-1999 was registered under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION], [ACT] and under [SECTION] of the Act with Police Station, Mulepur on the complaint filed by Harijans of village Jaggo Chinerthal. Taking into account the facts of the case it was observed that mere mention of [SECTION] of the Act in the FIR would not be a ground to refuse bail under [SECTION] of the Code and consequently the anticipatory bail was allowed to the accused.
15. In [PRECEDENT], the Hon'ble Judge of this Court, while referring the case to the larger Bench on the four issues framed had extended the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner-accused after noticing the fact that civil and criminal disputes were pending between the parties and for that reason it was observed that it cannot be ruled out that the present complaint had been lodged by second respondent as counter-blast with an ulterior motive or with mala fides in view of several disputes pending between them.
16. The above cases do indicate that taking into account the facts and circumstances brought forth on record the benefit of anticipatory bail had been extended to the accused after noticing the scope of the applicability of [SECTION] of the Act.
17. Thus, keeping in view the position of law and totality of circumstances on record noticed in the earlier part of this order, I accept the petition of the petitioner. It is directed that he shall be admitted to bail upon his furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer undertaking therein to abide by the conditions laid down under [SECTION] of the Code.