Adiseshan Naidu and 3 others vs State by Inspector of Police, Tiruporur

B. Akbait Bash A Khadiri, J.—The Petitioners apprehend arrest at the hands of the Respondent for the alleged commission of offence under Sections 324, 323, 447 and 427, I.P.C. read with Section 3(i)(10) of S.C. and ST. Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989. The alleged occurrence is 7.12.1994. Date of complaint is 30.8.1996. The case of the complaint who belongs to S.C. Community is that the Respondent moved down the Eucalyptus saplings cultivated by her and when she questioned, the first Petitioner called her by caste name and intimidated and humiliated her.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner cited two authorities before me. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner though Section 18 of S.C. & S.T. Act is a bar for grant of anticipatory bail still if a clear reading of the complaint and other statement does not reveal the case u/s 3(1)(10) of the Act, anticipatory bail can be granted.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner cited a decision reported in Dhavam v. State, by Inspector of Police 1998 MLJ 23 wherein my learned brother Mr Justice Karpagavinay-agam has held that if only an offence u/s 3(1)(10) is revealed in the complaint or other statements, then, the bar u/s 18 of the S.C. & ST. Act would apply. I have perused the complaint. The overt act alleged is only against the first Petitioner and not against the other Petitioners. Nowhere in the complaint it is stated that the other Petitioners intimidated or humiliated the complainant.

3-A. Next, the counsel for the Petitioner has cited a decision in Phulla Dass Vs. State of Punjab and Another, wherein the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held: "if the court comes to the conclusion that the process of law is being misused, the petition is totally mala fide and vexatious, on the basis of which the first information report is recorded, the Court would certainly exercise its inherent powers and even powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. But it would certainly not be exercised to defeat specific provisions namely Section 18 of the Act."

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that though the occurrence is alleged to have happened on 7.12.1994, complaint had not been immediately preferred. But the complaint was preferred only on 30.8.1996, after a lapse of about one year and four months. This is a feigned complaint. I see reason in the submissions of the learned Counsel. I am inclined to grant bail to Petitioners 2,3, and 4.

Petitioners 2, 3 and 4 shall be enlarged on bail in the event of arrest on each of them executing a bond for a sum of Rs. 5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) with the sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate, No. I, Chengalpattu and on further condition that the Petitioners 2,3, and 4 shall report before the Respondent every day at 10:00 a.m. and 5 p.m. as and when required.

So far as the first Petitioner is concerned, he is directed to surrender before the District Judge, Chengalpattu and in the event of his surrender, the Sessions Court will consider the application on the same day if possible and pass orders on merits.