MANJEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in respect of FIR No.264/12 under Section 341/323/34 of the IPC and Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter referred to as "the SC/ST Act".

(2.) The brief facts giving rise to the present anticipatory bail application are these. According to the prosecution, on 22.7.2012, the complainant Harish Kataria and his brother Komal Kataria were in their shop and their other brother Sunil Kataria was roaming around in the street. At about 7.30 p.m., Manjeet Singh, the first of the present petitioners is alleged to have uttered a caste remark to Sunil Kataria calling him "O khatikde, I will make you forget how to do business". When Sunil Kataria told Manjeet Singh not to utter such words, Manjeet and his sons Sachin and Sagar and their servant Vijay Kumar beat up Sunil Kataria. When the complainant and his brothers tried to save Sunil Kataria, they were also beaten up. The allegation levelled by the complainant against Manjeet Singh was that he uttered the caste remark against Sunil Kumar Kataria which was an offence under the SC/ST Act. It appears that there was a further investigation by the police under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. at the conclusion of which a final report was submitted against all the three accused persons, namely, Manjeet Singh Sachdeva, Sachin Sachdeva and Sagar Sachdeva. This final report was submitted on 11.3.2013 after examining about 19 witnesses. The final report refers to the statement of two witnesses, namely, Sanjeev Jain and Bharat Kwatra. They are said to have deposed that Manjeet Singh uttered the words "khatikde" as also the words "chamar" and "chude". The case of the prosecution thus is that all the three petitioners as well as their servant Vijay Kumar have committed the offence under Section 323/341/34 of the IPC read with Section 3(i)(x) of the SC/ST Act.

(3.) All the three persons i.e., Manjeet Singh, Sachin and Sagar applied for anticipatory bail but it was rejected by the lower court by order dated 3.4.2013. A perusal of the order of the sessions court shows that it has relied heavily on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vilas Pandurang Pawar and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., 2012 8 SCC 795 and has held that Section 18 of the SC/ST Act rules out the application of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in respect of persons who have committed an offence under the SC/ST Act. The sessions court has also found on a perusal of the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that all the accused persons had made caste abuses against the complainant and his brothers and that such utterances were made outside the shop in the gali within public view. Accordingly, the sessions court has held that prima facie the provisions of section 3(i)(x) of the SC/ST Act are attracted. Before the sessions court the accused had pleaded that the dispute arose basically out of business rivalry between the two parties who were running their business in the same street on opposite sides and where business rivalry is the reason for the dispute, anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 438 Cr.P.C. even where the accused is charged with the offence under the SC/ST Act. This contention was rejected by the sessions court on its understanding that the judgment of the Supreme Court cited supra ruled out the applicability of the Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 18 of the SC/ST Act. The anticipatory bail application was accordingly rejected.