YOGESH TRIVEDI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This bail application has been filed by the petitioners under Section 438 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 14.5.2013 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Sikar whereby the anticipatory bail application of the petitioners has been dismissed. Briefly, stated the facts of the case are that the complainant Sohan Kumar Meena on 13th January, 2013 has lodged the F.I.R. at the Police Station, Khatushyamji against the accused persons including the present accused petitioners alleging therein that on 31st January. 2013, he was passing through the road in front of the house of the accused (sic)ons then Yogesh Trivedi, Chetan Trivedi and their relative Abhishek Mishra abused him on the caste and thereafter at 4.00 PM the accused persons further came and after abusing him on the caste gave beating by lathi and fists. On the basis of the information of the complainant, the police registered F.I.R. No. 14/2013 at Police Station Khatushyamji for offence under Sections 341, 323/34 IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Apprehending their arrest, the accused petitioners filed bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of pre-arrest bail before the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Sikar but the bail application was dismissed by the Special Judge vide order dated 14th May, 2013. Hence, this bail application.

(2.) Mr. Ashok Mishra and Mr. Suresh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners have contended that the accused petitioners have not committed any offence which is punishable either with death sentence or with life imprisonment and they have been falsely implicated in the matter with some ulterior motive by making false allegations. Counsel next contended that from a bare perusal of the F.I.R. and the evidence available on recorded shows that prima facie no offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act can be said to be made out against the accused petitioners. Counsel further submitted that although Section 18 of the Act creates a bar for invoking Section 438 Cr.P.C. however, a duty is cast on the court to verify the averments in the complaint and to find out whether an offence under Section 3(1) of the Act has been prima facie made out or not. In support of their submissions, counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on paragraphs Nos. 9, 10 and 13 of the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vilas Pandurang Pawar & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors, 2012 8 SCC 795and on paragraphs Nos. 5, 10 and 15 of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Virendra Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, 2000 2 WLC(Raj) 608.

(3.) On the other hand, learned PP has opposed the bail application and has contended that the facts of the present case and the facts of the case of Vilas Pandurang Pawar , the judgment of the Supreme Court cited by the counsel for the petitioners are the same as in para. No. 2 of the aforesaid judgment it has been mentioned that "Balu Bhanudas Pawar came there and abused them on caste on account of the rainwater flowing from the agricultural land of the complainant to his land." On the basis of the aforesaid averments, learned PP has contended that the allegations in the present case are of similar nature and after considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the allegations levelled in the complaint in the case of Vilas Panduranga , their Lordships of the Supreme Court have dismissed the bail application filed by the petitioner under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. Pointing out the allegations in the F.I.R. in the instant case, learned PP has contended that the accused persons first abused the complainant on the caste and then started beating him by lathi and firsts. There is a bar under Section 18 of the Act for grant of anticipatory bail. Lastly, he contended that when the offence has been registered under the provisions of the Act then no court shall entertain application for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, the bail application filed by the accused petitioners deserves to be dismissed and the same be dismissed.