No.1/State.

None for the respondent No.2/complainant despite compliance of provision of Section 15(A)(III) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act by the respondent No.1.

Heard with the aid of case diary.

This appeal has been filed under Section 14 (A) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated 09.07.2018 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Hoshangabad, whereby learned Judge rejected the bail application filed by the appellant under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to get anticipatory bail in Crime No.190/2018 registered at Police Station Sohagpur, Distt. Hoshangabad for the offences under Sections 354 , 456 , 506 / 34 of IPC and Section 3 (2) (5-a) of SC/ST Act, who apprehends his arrest in the crime.

As per prosecution case, on 03.05.2018 at 10:00 PM applicant along with three other persons came to prosecutrix's house and molested her. On that, the police registered Crime No.190/2018 for the offences under Sections 354 , 456 , 506 / 34 of IPC and Section 3 (2) (5-

a) of SC/ST Act. The appellant filed an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court for grant of anticipatory bail, which was rejected. Being aggrieved by that order, present appeal has been filed.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the matter. At the time of incident, applicant went to the house of prosecutrix to search his motorcycle where Lakhan Pardhi husband of the prosecutrix, Sagariya Pardhi, Vinod Pardhi and Shailendra Pardhi assaulted the applicant. In the incident applicant sustained injuries. On the report of appellant, Crime No. 209/2018 has been registered at P.S. Sohagpur Distt. Hoshangabad against Lakhan Pardhi husband of the prosecutrix and THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRA.5233/2018 ( Surenrdra Raghuvanshi Vs. State of M.P. & Anr. ) 2 other co-accused persons namely Sagariya Pardhi, Vinod Pardhi and Shailendra Pardhi due to which prosecutrix lodged false complaint against the present appellant. So the provisions of Section 18 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are not attracted. Appellant is ready to cooperate in the investigation and trial. In the event of arrest, his reputation will be ruined. Hence, counsel prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the appeal stating that during the incident appellant entered into the house of prosecutrix and molested her, therefore, offences 354, 456, 506/34 of IPC and under Section 3 (2) (5-a) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are prima facie also made out against the applicant, so he should not be released on bail.

Although offence under Sections 3 (2) (5-a) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, has been registered against the appellant and according to Section 18 of the Act provisions of Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not apply to the persons committing an offence under the Act, but in Pankaj D. Suthar V/s. State Of Gujarat reported in (1992) 1 GLR 405 while considering the scope of Section 18 of the Prevention of Atrocities Act, the Gujarat High Court observed as under :-

Apex Court also in the case of Vilas Pandurang and another V/s. State of Maharashtra and others reported in (2012) 8 SCC 795 held as under :-

The Apex Court also in the case of Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan reported in 2018 SCC OnLine SC 243 held that the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act would apply only, where there is prima facie case of an offence having been committed by the accused against a member of the SC/ST community. However, in the event the accused/applicant is able to show to the court the existence of malice and ill-will in the registration of the FIR, then the bar of Section 18 of SC/ST Act would not apply.

This shows that in the crime registered for the offences under Atrocity Act anticipatory bail can be granted when it is prima facie found that such an offence is not made out or accused/applicant is able to show to the court the existence of malice and ill-will in the registration of the FIR.

It appears from the record that in the incident appellant sustained injuries and on the report of the appellant, Crime No. 209/2018 was registered against the husband of the complainant. Applicant also filed the copy of the FIR lodged by him regarding theft of his Bike. So prima facie contention of the learned lawyer of the applicant appears to be probable.

So looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on merits, the appeal is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of appellant in Crime No.190/2018 registered at Police Station Sohagpur, Hoshangabad, the present appellant be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Station House Officer.

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRA.5233/2018 ( Surenrdra Raghuvanshi Vs. State of M.P. & Anr. ) 4 This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the appellant :

A copy of this order be sent to the concerned court for compliance.

Accordingly, appeal is disposed of.

C.c. as per rules.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge sarathe Digitally signed by NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Date: 2018.08.28 10:57:14 +05'30'