Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.1414 of 2014 of Pandalam Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341, 342, 323, 427 and 506(i) r/w 149 IPC and Section 3(i) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989. The petitioner and the defacto complainant are neighbours. There is a civil dispute between them. The case was registered on the allegation that the petitioners assaulted and threatened the defacto complainant. Later a report was filed to the effect that they have committed the offence under Section 3 (1)(x) of the SC/ST (P&A) Act also. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the report has been filed falsely with the sole intention of denying the benefit of the anticipatory bail, the Sessions Court was already granted to the petitioners. 2. Heard.
3. A perusal of the FI Statement shows that the petitioners did not commit any offence under the SC/ST (P&A) Act. After the Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail, a report was filed that the petitioners have committed the offence under SC/ST (P&A) Act also. Prima facie, this cannot be believed. It is also doubtful whether the investigation is being conducted honestly. But as Section 18 of the SC/ST (P&A) Act bars granting anticipatory bail, I am not inclined to grant the prayer of the petitioners. But the learned Magistrate is free to take notice of the suspicious circumstances in the case and pass an order on merit, when the situation arises.
In the result, this application is dismissed. The learned Magistrate concerned may take notice of the observations made in this order and pass appropriate orders, if a regular bail application is filed by the petitioners.
sd/-
K. ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE das // True copy // PA to Judge