SATYAPRAKASH Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused/applicant has preferred this bail application under Section 438 of the Cr. P.C. apprehending arrest in Crime No. 88/2002, Police Station : Special SC/ST Police Station, Durg, for commission of the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, for releasing him on anticipatory bail before arrest.

(2.) BRIEF facts relevant for the disposal of this bail application are that one Mangaldas Barle lodged a report on 6-10-2002 with the Police Station Anusuchit Jati Kanyan, Durg, with the allegations that on 26-8-2002 at about 5:30 pm in the evening he went to meet Mr. Jangde, Assistant Commissioner, in his office situated near Ravishankar Stadium, Manas Bhawan, Durg. When he reached at the gate of the office, he saw that one person wearing dark red shirt coming out of the gate. He enquired from him whether Mr. Jangde, Assistant Labour Commissioner, is in office or not, then that person asked for his name and in reply he introduced himself to that person. He again enquired about the presence of Mr. Jangde then that person said that "Won Chammar Sale Beech ke kamre mein Baitha Hai Mil Lo" (that Chammar is sitting in the middle room, you meet him). Then he asked him as to why he is abusing him in the name of the caste as he is also from the same caste, then he said that you are also chammar', if I would not address Chammar to Chammar then I should address you as 'Brahmin' and while abusing, he started beating him. On hearing the noise Jangde Saheb along with three persons came out, saw that incident, and intervened. Thereafter that person went away abusing in the filthy language. Then he enquired from Jangde that who was this person ? Then he said that he was Satyaprakash Verma, Assistant Labour Commissioner. On this report the Police registered the case under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1989) and the matter is under investigation.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the accused/applicant argued that as per the settled law the High Court is not prevented from entertaining the application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. if the contents of the F.I.R. do not disclose the commission of the offence under the Act, 1989. He further argued that on the facts and in the circumstances if prima facie it appears to the Court that the allegations in the F.I.R. are so exaggerated, improbable and unbelievable and the applicant is able to establish that the allegations in the said F.I.R. appear to blackmail or to wreck some personal vengeance for settling and scoring personal vendetta or by way of some counter-blasts against opponents some public servants, then the Court is entitled to entertain the application.