Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 259 (ORI)

Balaram Jena v. State of Orissa

2007-04-12

L.MOHAPATRA

body2007
JUDGMENT Heard Miss S. Ratho, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the State. 2. This application has been filed for grant of anticipa¬tory bail in a case where FIR has been registered for commission of offences under Sections 294, 323, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3 of the SC & ST (PA) Act. From the FIR it appears that the informant and two others had gone to a hotel to take food. There was quarrel between the informant and his group and the hotel staff and in the process it is alleged that the informant and his friends were assaulted. So far as the assault part is concerned, the case has been registered for commission of offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code which is bailable in nature. 3. The question as to whether grant of anticipatory bail is a bar for commission of an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST (PA) Act or not came up for consideration before a Single Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Baldeu Kaushik v. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in 2006 (3) Crimes 547 . The Single Bench of the said Court held that the offence under Section 3 (1)(x) of the SC & ST (PA) Act must have been committed against a person on ground that such person is a member of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. If the offence is not committed on ground or for the reason that the victim belongs to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, provisions of Section 3 (1)(x) are not attracted and if evidence of this nature is lacking in any case and victim by chance happens to be member of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, merely on said ground provisions of SC and ST (PA) Act would not be attracted. Similar view has been taken by the same High Court in the case of Bhupendra Das Viashnava and another v. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in 2006 (3) Crimes 590 ; and in the case of Ashok Dash and others v. Ranjan Das, reported in 2006 (3) Crimes 593 . In the present case, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioners had knowledge that the informant’s side belong to Scheduled Castes community. In the present case, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioners had knowledge that the informant’s side belong to Scheduled Castes community. The incident took place because of some dispute with regard to beating of drum and it is alleged that the informant’s side were assaulted. There is nothing in the FIR to show that the offence was committed by the petitioners knowing fully well that the informant’s side belong to the Sched¬ule Castes. Under these circumstances, the offence under Sec. 3 (1)(x) of the SC & ST (PA) Act may not be attracted and therefore grant of anticipatory bail will not be a bar. So far as offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, there is absolutely no allegation of outraging modesty of any woman. In course of the incident some lady members of the informant’s side have been assaulted. Such allegation shall not attract the of¬fence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had even knowledge that the informant belongs to scheduled caste community. I am, therefore, of the view that grant of anticipato¬ry bail will not be a bar. 5. On consideration of the entire allegation, I allow the prayer and it is directed that in the event the petitioners are arrested in connection with Nalco P.S.Case No. 46 of 2006 corre¬sponding to C.T.Case No. 996 of 2006 pending in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Angul, they shall be released on bail by the arresting officer on such terms and conditions as the arresting officer may deem just and proper. This order shall remain in force till submission of Final Form. The application is disposed of. Urgent certified copy of the order be granted on proper application. Application disposed of.