No.1/State.

Respondent No.2 is present in person with her counsel, Shri C.P. Singh.

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 03.01.2018 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Jabalpur, 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.430/2017, registered at Police Station-Kotwali, District Jabalpur for the offences under Sections 195-A , 294 , 506 of IPC and Section 3 (2)(va) , 3 (1)(r) , 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, who apprehends her arrest in the crime.

As per prosecution case, on 11.12.2017, the appellant, her son Avinash along with some antisocial elements came to the complainant's shop and threatened her and abused her with insulting words regarding caste. On that report, the police registered Crime No.430/2017 for the offence punishable under Sections 195A , 294 , 506 of IPC and Section 3(2) , 5(A) , 3(1)(r) & 3 (1)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 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, this appeal has been filed.

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRA-303-2018 ( SMT. GAYATRI TIWARI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. ) 2 Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the matter. The respondent No.2 has already married with the appellant's son on 30.01.2018. Moreover, there is no evidence on record to show that the appellant committed the said act against the complainant knowingly that she belonged to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community. Further, the act of the appellant does not come under the purview of the provisions of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. So the provisions of Section 18 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are not attracted. Hence, counsel prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the appeal stating that in the incident appellant also abused the complainant with insulting words regarding caste, therefore, offence under Section 3 (1) (rs) & 3 (2) (5-a) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is also made out.

Learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No. 2 submitted that the complainant has no objection if the appellant is released on anticipatory bail.

Although Crime No.893/2016 was also registered against the appellant for the offences under Sections 3 (1) (rs) & 3 (2) (5-a) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 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:-

The 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 :-

Which shows that in the crime registered for the offences under Atrocity Act anticipatory bail can be granted when it prima facie finds that such an offence is not made out. In this case also, in the caste certificate, it is mentioned that complainant belongs to S.T. community while in the FIR it is mentioned that appellant abused the complainant "ततम ननच चममर जमत कक हह". 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.430/2017 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Jabalpur the present appellant be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of the like THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRA-303-2018 ( SMT. GAYATRI TIWARI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. ) 4 amount to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, (Atrocities), Jabalpur.

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

Accordingly, appeal is disposed of.

C.c. as per rules.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge (ra) Digitally signed by RANJEET AHIRWAL Date: 2018.02.15 15:01:43 +05'30'