JUDGMENT Vibha Kankanwadi, J. - All these appeals are filed by the accused persons in Crime No.24 of 2020, registered with Sirsala Police Station Dist. Beed for the offences punishable under Section 306, 504 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 (1) (r) (s), 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. They are apprehending their arrest in connection with the said crime and, therefore, they had approached learned Special Judge, Majalgaon Dist. Beed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, however the applications filed by all the appellants have been rejected. Hence, they have filed these appeals, under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 2. Admit. 3. Heard learned Advocate Mr. S. J. Salunke for all the appellants, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. S. W. Munde for respondent-State in all the appeals, and learned Advocate Mr. N. B. Sandanshiv for original informant respondent No.2 in all the matters. 4. It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the appellants that, perusal of the First Information Report would show that, the father of the informant had taken loan from accused No.1 on 20-09- 2010 which was to the tune of Rs.3 lakh, and it is stated that, he had entered into a document towards the security of that loan in respect of his land Gut No.187. He had promised to execute a written document in presence of two witnesses namely Baburao Kisan Shinde and another accused No.2 Baliram Uttam Sable. As per the informant, on various occasions deceased Bansi Kondiba Gavli had given different amounts, and according to the informant, it is more than Rs.5 lakh. When Bansi had requested for executing the document in his favour, as he had repaid the entire loan, it is stated that, accused No.1 insisted him that he should pay Rs.10 lakh more and then only he would execute such document. The informant had then given a complaint application to Superintendent of Police, Beed on 25-05-2018. When it was sent to Sirsala Police Station for inquiry, at that time Sarpanch and other persons along with the accused told him that, the registry would be done tomorrow and he was required to hire a jeep. They were made to sit there, however accused No.1 and 2 did not turn up. When it was sent to Sirsala Police Station for inquiry, at that time Sarpanch and other persons along with the accused told him that, the registry would be done tomorrow and he was required to hire a jeep. They were made to sit there, however accused No.1 and 2 did not turn up. The informant further says that, the accused persons had abused the father of the informant in the name of the caste and, therefore, because of the fact that accused was not executing the document and had insulted, Bansi had given up food for about a month, and ultimately he expired on 16-02-2020. He, therefore, lodged the report on 22-02-2020 which appears to be belated. Further, the learned Special Judge failed to consider that, it was in fact the sale deed that was executed by Bansi in favour of accused No.1 which was executed on 20-09-2010, and since then accused No.1 is in possession of the property, however the civil dispute arose between him and Bansi. He filed Regular Civil Suit No.97 of 2018 before Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dharur Dist. Beed. Temporary injunction was granted in favour of accused No.1 and Bansi was restrained from disturbing the possession of accused No.1. The learned Special Judge failed to see that, the death of Bansi is not suicidal, it was his natural death and, therefore, ingredients of Section 306 of Indian Penal Code were not at all attracted. The informant is now taking disadvantage of the situation and his caste. No offence attracting Atrocities Act would transpired and, therefore, there was no question of bar under Section 18 of the Atrocities Act. Learned Special Judge ought to have allowed the application. 5. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as learned Advocate for respondent No.2 informant strongly opposed the appeals and submitted that, though the loan was taken in 2010, the accused No.1 has extracted much more amount than the loan. He had promised to execute a written document, but when it was refused and by using specific words attributing the caste of the deceased, he was insulted by all the accused persons, he ultimately took a last resort and did not consume food for about a month. He had promised to execute a written document, but when it was refused and by using specific words attributing the caste of the deceased, he was insulted by all the accused persons, he ultimately took a last resort and did not consume food for about a month. When specific utterances involving the caste of the informant / deceased, were alleged against the accused persons, which will attract the provisions of Atrocities Act ; the learned Special Judge was right in holding that the application was barred under Section 18-A of the Atrocities Act. 6. At the outset, from the impugned order it can be seen that, four paragraphs have been consumed in writing the case as well as submissions, and only in paragraph No.5, the reasons have tried to be assigned by the learned Special Judge. However, he has not taken into consideration the pronouncement in, Prithviraj Chavan v. Union of India, Writ Petition No.1015 of 2018, decided by Hon'ble Apex Court on 10- 02-2020, and catena of Judgments of this Court. Contents of the FIR have not been properly considered, though at this stage the Special Judge was required to consider whether prima facie offence under the Atrocities Act has been made out or not, and whether the FIR is tainted. There is absolutely no discussion on this point and impugned order shows lack of application of mind by the learned Special Judge. Mere mention of abuse attributing the caste is not sufficient, but in addition to that, it ought to have been considered as to when the said alleged insulting words were used. Following portion from FIR is in respect of the utterances in the name of caste : 7. Important point to be noted is that, the earlier part of the FIR does not absolutely say that, on so many occasions since 20-09- 2010 Bansi had met the accused No.1 as well as some times to accused No.2 and at that time any specific abuse was given. He has given the dates on which certain amounts have been returned. But the above referred part would show that, since 2010 till a month prior to 22-02-2020, the accused persons were uttering such abuses. The FIR, therefore, is not clear as to exactly when he alleged incident of abuse in the name of caste had taken place. He has given the dates on which certain amounts have been returned. But the above referred part would show that, since 2010 till a month prior to 22-02-2020, the accused persons were uttering such abuses. The FIR, therefore, is not clear as to exactly when he alleged incident of abuse in the name of caste had taken place. The informant says that, his father, informant's wife, brother and sisterin-law had given complaint applications on 09-02-2020 and 11-02- 2020 to police. Today those complaint applications have not been made available by the prosecution. Whether those complaint applications have been collected by the investigating officer or not, itself is a question. But the FIR further says that, due to the insult because of his caste and since the accused No.1 was not returning the land, Bansi had stopped consumption of food. It had affected his mental condition and due to his illness, he ultimately expired on 16-02-2020. Surprisingly, with such kind of statements in the FIR, police have invoked Section 306 of Indian Penal Code. Even if those statements in the FIR are taken as it is as regards death of Bansi is concerned, then it can be seen that, as per the informant, Bansi had voluntarily stopped consumption of food. No doubt he says that, due to the harassment he had stopped consumption of food but then we cannot forget his earlier statement that since 2010 the alleged harassment was going on. Many questions arise as to why after Bansi stopped consumption of food, the informant had not taken him to hospital. Another question crops up that, if the entire loan was repaid somewhere around 06-11-2015, then why he had not filed any civil proceedings against accused No.1 to get back his property. We cannot forget the fact that accused No.1 has approached Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dharur by filing Regular Civil Suit No.97 of 2018 and deceased Bansi was restrained temporarily from disturbing the possession of accused No.1. The copy of the order below Exhibit 05 in Regular Civil Suit No.97 of 2018 has been produced. Perusal of the same would show that, defendant i. e. Bansi Kondiba Gavli, though served, had not appeared and failed to file written statement and, therefore, the matter has proceeded ex-parte against him. The copy of the order below Exhibit 05 in Regular Civil Suit No.97 of 2018 has been produced. Perusal of the same would show that, defendant i. e. Bansi Kondiba Gavli, though served, had not appeared and failed to file written statement and, therefore, the matter has proceeded ex-parte against him. It appears that, all these documents were before the learned Special Judge, yet he has not considered these documents in proper perspective. He has brushed aside the said circumstance by saying that, though there is civil dispute, the allegations against the appellants are regarding abuse in the name of caste show that offence is serious. The intention behind filing FIR at such stage ought to have been considered by the learned Special Judge. When Bansi had every opportunity to contest the civil suit, so also he could have filed a counter claim, if all the legal parameters were in his favour, yet Bansi did not appear in that matter. It appears that Bansi had not taken steps to protect his alleged rights over the land. Then how it can be interpreted that accused were harassing him. 8. The contents of the FIR absolutely do not disclose even at this prima facie stage that, there was any kind of abatement to commit suicide by the present accused persons to Bansi. The contents of the FIR are not disclosing the offence under the Atrocities Act. These are the prima facie observations only to the extent of bail appeals, and they are required to be observed taking into consideration the fact that, as per the contents thereof the alleged harassment regarding abuse in the name of caste is going on since 2010, and there was absolutely no attempt to lodge a report with the police station by Bansi or to approach the Criminal Court. Another fact is also required to be considered that, FIR says that there were in all five accused persons who had uttered the abuses in the name of caste to Bansi. Abuses cannot be in chorus. No specific role is attributed, that means who had abused, in which words, at what time, period etc., is not mentioned. 9. Following observations from case of Prithviraj Chavan v. Union of India (Supra) would be helpful in deciding these appeals ; "10. Abuses cannot be in chorus. No specific role is attributed, that means who had abused, in which words, at what time, period etc., is not mentioned. 9. Following observations from case of Prithviraj Chavan v. Union of India (Supra) would be helpful in deciding these appeals ; "10. Concerning the applicability of provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C., it shall not apply to the cases under Act of 1989. However, if the complaint does not make out a prima facie case for applicability of the provisions of the Act of 1989, the bar created by Section 18 and 18A (i) shall not apply. We have clarified this aspect while deciding the review petitions." In Kiran s/o Madhukar Ingle v. The State of Maharashtra and Another, Criminal Appeal No.787 of 2018, decided on 26-02-2019, by Single Bench of this Court, it has been observed that, "13. It is explicitly made clear that the Court of Sessions or High Court can entertain the application for pre-arrest bail to ascertain its maintainability. The law does not permit to reject the application for anticipatory bail merely because the case has been registered under Section 3 of the Act of 1989. But, it is incumbent on the part of the Court to examine as to whether the applicant at all is a fit person to be treated as accused of the crime registered under the Act of 1989. Section 18 of the Act of 1989 does not bar judicial scrutiny of the accusation made in the complaint. When the Court is held competent to enter into scrutiny of the allegations to determine whether the person can be treated as accused of commission of offence under the Act of 1989, then question would arise as to what extent the Court would be justified to examine material to determine the prima facie case against him." "14........." "15. When the Court is held competent to enter into scrutiny of the allegations to determine whether the person can be treated as accused of commission of offence under the Act of 1989, then question would arise as to what extent the Court would be justified to examine material to determine the prima facie case against him." "14........." "15. The exposition of law as referred above unequivocally pointer to the inference that the application for anticipatory bail can be entertained only on the ground of inapplicability of the provisions of Act of 1989 and it would be ascertainable only on perusal of recitals of the FIR or complaint and not beyond that, because once it is gathered from the FIR that the applicant is accused of committing the offence prescribed under Section 3 of the Act of 1989, a bar under Section 18 of the Act of 1989 would instantly operate against him. Therefore,t he Courts are not permitted to enter into roving enquiry in regard to sustainability of accusation nurtured on behalf of complainant. Moreover, further scrutiny by summoning the case diary or other material to test veracity of the allegations made in the FIR also not permissible under the law." The position of law has been clarified in above matters as well as in Criminal Appeal No.425 of 2020, Irshad Rubab Sawar and Others v. The State of Maharashtra and Anr., decided by this Court on 20-08-2020. 10. The learned Special Judge has not considered the proper legal aspects involved in the matter and wrongly arrived at the conclusion that the applications filed for pre-arrest bail by all the appellants were barred under Section 18-A of the Atrocities Act. There was absolutely no bar and, therefore, those impugned orders are required to be set aside. Further, the physical custody of appellants is not at all required for investigation taking into consideration contents of FIR. The appeals deserves to be allowed. Hence, following order. ORDER 1) All the appeals are allowed. 2) The orders passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Majalgaon District Beed in Criminal Misc. Applications No.49 of 2020, No.51 of 2020, 50 of 2020 and No.58 of 2020 are hereby set aside. The said applications stand allowed. The appeals deserves to be allowed. Hence, following order. ORDER 1) All the appeals are allowed. 2) The orders passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Majalgaon District Beed in Criminal Misc. Applications No.49 of 2020, No.51 of 2020, 50 of 2020 and No.58 of 2020 are hereby set aside. The said applications stand allowed. 3) In the event of arrest of the appellants No.1 Uddhav Rangnath Kadam and No.2 Trimbak Balasaheb Sable in Criminal Appeal No.267 of 2020, appellants No.1 Sayyad Rahim Sayyad Maheboob and No.2 Sayyad Isaq Mahemood Sayyad in Criminal Appeal No.273 of 2020, and appellan Baliram Uttam Sable in Criminal Appeal No.301 of 2020, in connection with Crime No.24 of 2020, dated 22-02-2020, for the offences punishable under Section 306, 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and Under Section 3 (1) (r) (s), 3 (2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, they be released on P.R. of Rs.30,000/- (in words rupees thirty thousand only) with two sureties of Rs.15,000/- each (in words rupees fifteen thousand only). 4) The appellants shall not commit any offence. 5) The appellants should remain present before the Investigating Officer on every Monday, Wednesday and Friday between 10.00 a.m. to 02.00 p.m., till filing of charge-sheet. 6) They should co-operate with the investigation. 7) They shall not try to pressurize witnesses in any manner.