NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has said that the essential ingredients of the offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 would not prima facie be made out, when there is no allegation that a caste slur or an offending statement was made in the presence of members of the general public.
A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Manoj Misra allowed anticipatory bail to Deepak Kumar Tala, who challenged the order of November 18, 2024 by the High Court.
SC Grants Anticipatory Bail, Cites Lack of Public View in Caste Slur Allegation
The HC had dismissed his plea against rejection of his application for anticipatory bail by trial court order on August 24, 2024.
The FIR was lodged at police station G D Nellore UPS on April 18, 2024 under Sections 364, 511, 307, 343, 419, 506, 120B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
As per the FIR, the complainant belonged to a Scheduled Caste. The appellant set up a Trust for development of a temple along with the complainant and others, but forced him to transfer certain lands. Upon refusal, the appellant threatened to kill him, abused him by a caste slur, and asked him to stop reciting prayers.
Also Read - Essential for abuse to be in public view for making out offence under SC/ST Act: SC [Read Judgment]
On April 18, 2024, the complainant was abducted by various persons and taken to different locations where he was kept locked up for several days.
On April 29, 2024, some accused persons took him to a petrol station and threatened him to transfer the temple’s lands in the appellant’s name or that they would kill him. Upon refusing, they beat the complainant with their hands and threatened him with small knives, which led him to agree to transfer the lands out of fear. Meanwhile, the complainant was rescued by the police and four accused persons were arrested.
Court Says Essential Ingredients of SC/ST Act Not Prima Facie Met
However, on a prima facie examination of the FIR, the bench said, it is very clear that there is only one alleged instance of an insult or caste slur but there is no allegation that such offending statement was made in the presence of members of the general public.
"Hence, an essential ingredient for attracting Sections 2(1)(r) and 2(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, i.e., that such statement must be made within “public view”, as held by this court in Shajan Skaria Vs State of Kerala (2024) is prima facie not made out from the FIR," the bench said.
The bench also noted that the allegations regarding the appellant’s involvement in the alleged conspiracy for the complainant’s abduction and criminal intimidation are only inferential in nature, which can be established during trial.
The court said the relationship between the parties, as evident from the FIR itself is that the appellant and the complainant were associated for a long time (since 2012) with the temple’s activities, for which a Trust was formed that named both of them as trustees.
It was only in 2017 that certain disputes arose between them and multiple civil suits regarding the temple’s properties and funds were instituted by the appellant.
"In light of this overall perspective and considering the allegations in the FIR, our prima facie conclusion is that the appellant is entitled to anticipatory bail as per the principles laid down by this court in Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs Union of India (2020) and Shajan Skaria," the bench said.
The court, however, clarified that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and that the observations made in the order will have no bearing on the conduct of the trial or on the final decision in the criminal proceedings.
