Sections 506 and 509 read with 34 I.P.C. as well as under Section 3 (1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and for anticipatory bail - when accused is also belongs to SC community- prima faice, SC and SC Act not applies, other sections are bailable offences - hence accused are entitled for anticipatory bail =
The petitioners seek for grant of anticipatory bail. They allegedly committed the offences under Sections 506 and 509 read with 34 I.P.C. as well as under Section 3 (1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
A.1 and A.4 are members of the Scheduled Caste and that the provisions of the SC/ST Act do not apply to them. He has produced the caste certificates of A.1 and A.4 showing that they belong to SC community. Consequently, no prima facie case can be made out against A.1 and A.4 under the provisions of the SC/ST Act.
Once the offence under the provisions of the SC & ST Act is not made out, the question is whether the petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. The offences under Sections 506 and 509 IPC are bailable. The provision of anticipatory bail, consequently, does not lie. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to grant anticipatory bail, through this petition.
| CRLP 3401 / 2013 | CRLPSR 11446 / 2013 |
|
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR
Crl. Petition No.3401 of 2013
Date: 22.04.2013
Between:
Gettam Srinivasa Rao
and 4 others. .. Petitioners/
A.1 to A.5
AND
The State of A.P.,
rep.by Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Hyderabad. .. Respondent/
Complainant
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR
Crl. Petition No.3401 of 2013
ORDER:
The petitioners seek for grant of anticipatory bail. They allegedly committed the offences under Sections 506 and 509 read with 34 I.P.C. as well as under Section 3 (1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
[the SC/ST Act, for short]. Section 18 of the SC/ST Act specifically proscribes grant of anticipatory bail.
[the SC/ST Act, for short]. Section 18 of the SC/ST Act specifically proscribes grant of anticipatory bail.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the prosecution prima facie failed in establishing the case under the provisions of the SC/ST Act and consequently, the petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
3. I may first of all point out that the offences other than the offences under the provisions of the SC/ST Act are so minor that it would be advisable to enlarge the petitioners on bail, as both the offences are bailable. However, as the petitioners allegedly committed the offence u/s.3 (1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, it becomes necessary to consider whether the petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail or otherwise.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that A.1 and A.4 are members of the Scheduled Caste and that the provisions of the SC/ST Act do not apply to them. He has produced the caste certificates of A.1 and A.4 showing that they belong to SC community. Consequently, no prima facie case can be made out against A.1 and A.4 under the provisions of the SC/ST Act.
The question is whether a prima facie case is made out against A.2, A.3 and A.5 under the provisions of the SC/ST Act.
The question is whether a prima facie case is made out against A.2, A.3 and A.5 under the provisions of the SC/ST Act.
5. The allegation against all the petitioners is that the petitioners misbehaved with the de facto complainant making invitation to her by attacking her in indecent manner. The alleged offence at best is the offence u/s.354 IPC but not one under the provisions of the SC/ST Act. It is also alleged by the de facto complainant that the accused alleged that the de facto complainant belongs to ST community and questioned whether the de facto complainant would like to continue in the job or otherwise. This is all what the petitioners stated regarding the community of the de facto complainant.
6. I, therefore, agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the alleged comment of the petitioners against the de facto complainant is not an abuse of the de facto complainant touching upon the community, so much so, the offence u/s.3 (1)(x) of the SC & ST Act prima facie is not made out.
7. Once the offence under the provisions of the SC & ST Act is not made out, the question is whether the petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. The offences under Sections 506 and 509 IPC are bailable. The provision of anticipatory bail, consequently, does not lie. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to grant anticipatory bail, through this petition.
8. Consequently, the Criminal Petition is disposed of holding that the offence u/s.3 (1)(x) of SC & ST Act prima facie is not made out against the petitioners. However, liberty is given to the petitioners to invoke due process of law for grant of bail otherwise.
_______________
K.G. Shankar, J
Date: 22.04.2013
Isn
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.