1 M.Cr.C. No.7475/2011 7/12/2011 Shri R.P.Singh, counsel for the applicant. Shri R.S.Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The applicant is apprehending her arrest in connection with Crime No.111/2008 registered at Police Station Bhitarwar, Distt. Gwalior, for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 294/34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a young youth of 25 years of age, who has no criminal past alleged against him. Except offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, remaining offences are bailable. It would be clear from the FIR that quarrel took place due to transaction of a tractor trolley. Trolley is now returned by the husband of the applicant to the complainant, and therefore, it is not seized. Quarrel did not take place on the basis of the caste of the complainant. Omnibus allegations are made against the applicant and her husband that they abused the complainant 2 on the basis of his caste, but by simple abusing, no offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out, and therefore, prohibition under Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act may not apply. Police is unnecessarily harassing the applicant. Applicant did not take the trolley from the complainant, and therefore, she was not responsible to return it. No offence under Section 406 of IPC is made out against the applicant. Under such circumstances, applicant prays for anticipatory bail. Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the application. Keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has a good case for grant of bail of anticipatory nature. Consequently, this application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest, present applicant viz. Smt. Varsha alias Sehore Wali shall be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with a 3 solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority. The applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. She shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub- Section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of “Sidharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and others”, (AIR 2011 SC 312), it is directed that this order shall remain in force till the end of the trial, if the applicant furnishes the bail bond and surety bond before the Court below at the time of filing of challan as per the terms and conditions as mentioned above. However, it is made clear that due to non-appearance of the applicant if the concerned Court issues a warrant of arrest in future against the applicant, then in such event this order be deemed ineffective relating to the applicant. Certified copy as per rules. (N.K.Gupta) Judge ms/-