(Da)(Dha) of S.C/S.T Act.){kind=link}
The Allahabad High Court while allowing an appeal said that the accused abused complainant inside his house and not in a public place nor there was any public view thus, no question arose that there is any public humiliation under Section 3(1)(Da)(Dha) of S.C/S.T Act.
A Single Bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed passed this order while hearing a Criminal Appeal filed by Urmila Singh Chauhan.
The appeal has been filed with a prayer to allow the appeal as well as to set aside the order dated 22.08.2023 passed by the Special Judge, S.C/S.T Act, Lucknow in F.I.R under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(Da)(Dha) of S.C/S.T Act, Police Station Krishna Nagar, District Lucknow.
The prosecution case is that the informant was asked to vacate the house in which he was living on rent of Rs 5,000/- per month. The informant received the order for vacation from the officer concerned. As per the order, one third portion was allotted to the appellant, wherein she was living with her family. Another one third portion was grabbed by the appellant illegally. The complainant asked the appellant to pay the amount of Rs 7,02,000/- through a legal notice, however, the appellant abused the complainant with caste abusive languages. On the date of incident, when the complainant was watering the plants, the accused persons started assaulting the complainant as well as his wife and had abused them in caste abusive languages.
As per the affidavit filed in support of the appeal, the contention of the appellant is that the entire prosecution story is false and fabricated. No case under the Sections of 3(1)(Da)(Dha) of S.C/S.T Act is attracted against the appellant.
As per the averment made in the affidavit, the incident is alleged to have taken place inside the house i.e inside the boundary wall of house and garden, which is neither a public place nor there was any public view and the appellant was not present at the time of the alleged incident.
It has also been contended that even the offence under the provisions of I.P.C is also not attracted against the appellant as there is no injury found on the person of the victim and even a medical report is also not available. Thus, the entire prosecution story appears to be false and lodged with malafide intention to implicate the entire family of the appellant, who is a lady.
Her further averment is that by means of the order dated 22.08.2023, the application seeking anticipatory bail by the appellant came to be rejected by the trial Court on the ground that entertaining such application for anticipatory bail is specifically barred and excluded by virtue of Section 18 of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
On the basis of above, it is further averred that denial of anticipatory bail on the basis of bar contained in Section 18 of Act, 1989 is not sustainable. Therefore, the appellant is entitled for anticipatory bail.
Per contra, A.G.A has vehemently opposed the prayer by submitting that Section 18 of SC/ST Act provides specific bar, in order to prevent and protect atrocities being committed in respect of members belonging to SC/ST Community. Therefore, such enactment should be construed strictly and in this view of the matter, no fault with the impugned order can be found.
“Considering the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the appeal as well as submissions made by A.G.A for the State and going through the contents of the impugned order passed by the trial court dated 22.08.2023 and the contents of the F.I.R, as the alleged incident took place inside the house of the complainant and not in the public place nor there was any public view, thus, no question arose that there is any public humiliation caused to the appellant for lodging the case under Section 3(1)(Da)(Dha) of S.C/S.T Act and even there is nothing to show that other Sections of the I.P.C are also attracted in the case of the appellant and also considering the Section 18 of the Act, 1989 which provides that there is a bar to grant anticipatory bail as well as considering the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan (Supra) and judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Court in the case of Gopal Mishra (Supra) and further considering the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs State of UP and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and Hitesh Verma (Supra), this Court is of the view that the court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record. The order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside”, the Court observed while allowing the appeal.
The Court ordered that,
Consequently, the order dated 22.08.2023 passed by the Special Judge, S.C/S.T Act, Lucknow in F.I.R under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C and Section 3(1) (Da)(Dha) of S.C/S.T Act, Police Station Krishna Nagar, District Lucknow rejecting the anticipatory bail of the appellant, is hereby set aside and reversed.
It is directed that in the event of arrest of the appellant, namely, Urmila Singh Chauhan in F.I.R under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(Da)(Dha) of S.C/S.T Act, Police Station Krishna Nagar, District Lucknow, she shall be released forthwith by the Station House Officer of the police station concerned, on her furnishing a personal bond of Rs 50,000/- with the following condition:-
(i) That the accused-appellant shall make herself available for interrogation by police authorities as and when required and will cooperate with the investigation;
(ii) That the accused-appellant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer; and
(iii) That the accused-appellant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.