None present from 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 30/11/17 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Shahdol (M.P), 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.253/2017, registered at Police Station-Devlond, District Shahdol (M.P.) for the offences under Sections 294 , 452 , 323 , 506 of the IPC and Section 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (5-a) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, who apprehends his arrest in the crime. As per prosecution case, on 30/09/2017 at about 9:45 pm appellant entered into the house of the complainant Mala Rawat and abused her and pressed her throat and assaulted her by fists, when her brother Alok Rawat came to rescue her, he also assaulted him by fists and also threatened to kill her.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the matter. Earlier this Court granted anticipatory bail to the appellant by order dated 07/11/2017 in M.Cr.C.No.19312/2017. Thereafter, the police also add the offences under Section 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (5-a) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 due to which he could not be released on THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH anticipatory bail. It is not mentioned in the FIR that any casteist remark was passed by the applicant at the time of incident. The incident allegedly occurred inside the house not within public view. So from the F.I.R., offence under the provisions of SC/ST Act is not made out. 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 for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that from the F.I.R. offences under Sections 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (5-a) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is clearly made out, so he should not be released on bail.

Looking to the 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 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 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. From the perusal of FIR no prima facie case for the offences punishable under provisions of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out against applicant. 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.253/2017 registered at Police Station Devlond, District Shahdol the present appellant be released on bail on his furnishing a 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 Special Judge, (Atrocities), Shahdol.

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 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 vs Digitally signed by VARSHA SINGH Date: 2018.01.27 14:18:56 +05'30'