THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
(PRADEEP PATEL (KURMI) Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 19-06-2018
Shri D.S. Baghel, counsel for the appellant.
Shri Vidya Shankar Mishra, Government Advocate for the
Shri S.B. Shrivastava, counsel for the objector.
Heard on this appeal for anticipatory bail under Section 14-A of
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989, filed on behalf of the appellant Pradeep
Patel (Kurmi) in crime no.242/2018 registered by P.S. Kotwali
Narsinghpur (M.P.) under Sections 456, 353, 354-A of the IPC
and Sections 3(1)(W)(i), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
As per prosecution case, at about 8 pm on 21.04.2018, when the
prosecutrix who is a major, married woman was alone at home,
appellant Pradeep entered her house and caught hold of her from
behind. He was trying to force himself upon her. When the
prosecutrix raised alarm and ran out of her house, her husband
came and accosted the appellant but he ran away from the spot.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has
been falsely implicated in the case. In fact, at the time of the
incident, he had gone to the house of the prosecutrix to recover
the amount due by the husband of the prosecutrix to the
appellant. He further submits that the appellant runs a grocery
shop and husband of the prosecutrix had run up a bill of
Rs.12,000/- for the recovery whereof, he had gone to the husband
of the prosecutrix but he refused to repay the amount and beat
him with a brick. As a result, he sustained injuries to his head
and cheek, resulting in bleeding. The First Information Report of
that incident was lodged within 4 hours at about 12 a.m.. When
Husband of the prosecutrix learnet that FIR has been lodged
against him, he got his wife to lodge an FIR against the
Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State and
learned counsel for the objector on the other hand have opposed
the bail application.
The Supreme Court has held in the case of Dr. Subhash
Kashinath Mahajan vs. State of Maharashtra
(Cr.A.No.416/2018 dated 20th March, 2018) as follows:
81. Accordingly, we direct that in absence of any other independent
offence calling for arrest, in respect of offences under the Atrocities
Act, no arrest may be effected, if an accused person is a public
servant, without written permission of the appointing authority and if
such a person is not a public servant, without written permission of
the Senior Superintendent of Police of the District. Such permissions
must be granted for recorded reasons which must be served on the
person to be arrested and to the concerned court. As and when a
person arrested is produced before the Magistrate, the Magistrate
must apply his mind to the reasons recorded and further detention
should be allowed only if the reasons recorded are found to be valid.
To avoid false implication, before FIR is registered, preliminary
enquiry may be made whether the case falls in the parameters of the
Atrocities Act and is not frivolous or motivated.
Consideration of present case
82. As far as the present case is concerned, we find merit in the
submissions of learned amicus that the proceedings against the
appellant are liable to be quashed.
83. Our conclusions are as follows:
i) Proceedings in the present case are clear abuse of process of court
and are quashed.
ii) There is no absolute bar against grant of anticipatory bail in cases
under the Atrocities Act if no prima facie case is made out or where
on judicial scrutiny the complaint is found to be prima facie mala
fide. We approve the view taken and approach of the Gujarat High
Court in Pankaj D Suthar (supra) and Dr. N.T. Desai (supra) and
clarify the judgments of this Court in Balothia (supra) and Manju
ii) In view of acknowledged abuse of law of arrest in cases under the
Atrocities Act, arrest of a public servant can only be after approval of
the appointing authority and of a non-public servant after approval by
the S.S.P. which may be granted in appropriate cases if considered
necessary for reasons recorded. Such reasons must be scrutinized by
the Magistrate for permitting further detention.
iv) To avoid false implication of an innocent, a preliminary enquiry
may be conducted by the DSP concerned to find out whether the
allegations make out a case under the Atrocities Act and that the
allegations are not frivolous or motivated.
v) Any violation of direction (iii) and (iv) will be actionable by way of
disciplinary action as well as contempt.
The above directions are prospective.
As such, the scope for grant of anticipatory bail has been
considerably widened. Therefore, in view of the submissions
made by learned counsel for the appellant, it would be
appropriate to dispose of this appeal for anticipatory bail
with following directions:
A preliminary enquiry shall be conducted by the DSP
concerned to find out whether the allegations make out a
case under the Atrocities Act and that the allegations are
not frivolous or motivated.
The appellant shall not be arrested before approval by the
S.S.P., which may be granted if deemed appropriate and
necessary for reasons to be recorded. Such reasons shall be
scrutinized by the Magistrate for permitting further
Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of with aforesaid
Certified copy as per rules.
(C V SIRPURKAR)
Digitally signed by MANISHA
Date: 2018.06.21 15:16:07