SC/ST Act | Anticipatory Bail Can Be Granted When Prima Facie Case Is Not Made Out: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court held that the bar imposed by Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) to grant anticipatory bail does not apply when there is a failure to establish a prima facie case against the Accused.
The Court, while allowing the bail application, noted that the allegations in the complaint were vague and omnibus.
The Bench of Justice Mohammad Nawaz observed, “In the facts and circumstances, bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act will not come in the way of granting the relief sought by the appellants, as there is no prima facie case made out at this stage to attract the provisions of the SC/ST Act”.
Advocate Siddharth B. Muchandi appeared for the Appellants, Advocate H.V. Ramachandra appeared for the Respondent and Government Pleader B. Lakshman appeared for the State
A complaint was filed by the Respondent under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), including Section 420 (cheating), Section 447 (criminal trespass), and Section 506 (criminal intimidation) read with Section 149 (unlawful assembly). Additionally, offences under the SC/ST Act, specifically Sections 3(1)(f), 3(1)(g), 3(1)(r), and 31(1)(s) were also recorded. The Appellants were accused of trespassing, making threats, and engaging in caste-based abuse. The Appellant approached the High Court by way of a Criminal Appeal challenging the rejection of the bail application by the Trial Court.
The Court noted that the Trial Court’s decision on the land dispute was premature. It is not disputed that the Respondent filed a suit against the Appellants for a permanent injunction, and this suit was still pending. The Bench observed that the dispute was civil. Additionally, the complaint does not indicate that the offences were committed based on the complainant's caste. Finally, the Bench noted that the complaint contains vague and omnibus allegations about the accused using offensive language referring to the complainant's caste.
The Bench noted that the complaint contains general allegations that the accused trespassed onto the property through fraudulent means, threatened the complainant and others, and used caste-based abuse. However, these allegations lack specificity regarding which accused committed the offences and when the incidents occurred.
The Bench held that, given the vague nature of the allegations, the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act does not hinder the grant of relief to the Appellants. There is no prima facie case at this stage to invoke the provisions of the SC/ST Act. Consequently, the Court deemed the impugned order as liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the Appeal and set aside the order of the Trial Court.
Cause Title: Chitti Babu Naidu v The State Of Karnataka (2023:KHC:42238)
