JUDGMENT : Vishal Mishra, J. 1. In the wake of unprecedented and uncertain situation due to outbreak of the Novel Corona virus (COVID-19) and considering the advisories issued by the Government of India, this application has been heard and decided through video conferencing to maintain social distancing. The parties are being represented by the respective counsel through video conferencing, following the norms of social distancing/physical distancing in letter and spirit. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. Present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter would be referred as "the Act") against the order dated 04.01.2021 passed by the Special Judge, Datia, whereby the bail application of the appellant under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. has been rejected. 4. The appellant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No. 501/2020 registered at Police Station Kotwali District Datia for the offence punishable under Sections 452, 323, 294, 506, 34 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha) of S.C.S.T. Act. 5. It is argued that appellant is a working advocate at District Court Datia. He is aged about 54 years and has also remained the Govt. leader. It is argued that a false case has been registered against the present appellant for the reason that the appellant is the Advocate of wife of the complainant in her matrimonial Dispute. He has regularly contesting on behalf of the wife before the Family Court and trial Court at District Court Datia. Owing to the same, the enmity has been developed with the complainant. 6. As per the prosecution story, the incident has said to have taken place is inside the house and does not fall under the purview of the S.C.S.T. Act. He has read over the F.I.R. and has tried to establish that the place of incident is not of a public view. For that he relied upon the judgment in the case of Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another as reported in 2020 (10) S.C.C. 710 (Criminal Appeal 707/2020), wherein in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically considered not amounts to public view. It is further argued that the Court has gone to the extend even the incident should be witnessed by some members of public who are not nearly relatives and friends of the complainant. 7. It is further argued that the Court has gone to the extend even the incident should be witnessed by some members of public who are not nearly relatives and friends of the complainant. 7. Counsel for the appellant has further relied upon a judgment by a Coordinate Bench of this Court with respect to applicability for consideration of anticipatory bails in cases of S.C.S.T. Act in the case Atendra Singh Rawat vs. State of M.P. And anr. reported in 2019 (2) MPLJ 481 and has argued that when the offence under the S.C.S.T. Act is not made out prima facie from the prosecution story itself. The anticipatory bail should have been considered. 8. Admittedly, in the present case the incident is taken inside at the house and as per the prosecution the same has been witnessed in the family members of the complainant. In such circumstances, no offence under the S.C.S.C. Act is made out. Rest of the offences are bailable in nature. He is ready to cooperate in the investigation and ready to abide by all the terms and conditions which may imposed by this Court while considering his application. The appellant has shown his willingness to render his services during this Covid pandemic-19. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 9. Per contra, counsel for the State as well as the complainant has opposed the application stating that there is a specific bar under Section 18-A of S.C.S.T. Act for consideration of anticipatory bails. It is argued that from the F.I.R., it is apparently clear that the abusive language considering the caste of the complainant has been used by the appellant. It is further contended that merely the appellant being an advocate does not grant him liberty to commit offences and get the liberty from the Court. It is argued that Section 452 IPC is also reflected in the F.I.R. Thus, they have prayed for dismissal of the application as the investigation is still pending in the matter and appellant does not cooperate in the investigation. 10. It is argued that Section 452 IPC is also reflected in the F.I.R. Thus, they have prayed for dismissal of the application as the investigation is still pending in the matter and appellant does not cooperate in the investigation. 10. It is contended by the counsel for the complainant that during the pendency of the present case another complaint has been made against the present appellant for which the offence is registered at Crime No. 23/21 at same Police Station alleging therein that the threatening is given to the complainant and also the stones have been thrown over his house on the directions of the appellant. In such circumstances, he should not been released on anticipatory bail. 11. The Supreme Court by order dated 23-3-2020 passed in the case of IN RE: CONTAGION OF COVID 19 VIRUS IN PRISONS in SUO MOTU W.P. (C) No. 1/2020 has directed all the States to constitute a High Level Committee to consider the release of prisoners in order to decongest the prisons. The Supreme Court has observed as under: "The issue of overcrowding of prisons is a matter of serious concern particularly in the present context of the pandemic of Corona Virus (COVID - 19). Having regard to the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it has become imperative to ensure that the spread of the Corona Virus within the prisons is controlled. We direct that each State/Union Territory shall constitute a High Powered Committee comprising of (i) Chairman of the State Legal Services Committee, (ii) the Principal Secretary (Home/Prison) by whatever designation is known as, (ii) Director General of Prison(s), to determine which class of prisoners can be released on parole or an interim bail for such period as may be thought appropriate. For instance, the State/Union Territory could consider the release of prisoners who have been convicted or are under trial for offences for which prescribed punishment is up to 7 years or less, with or without fine and the prisoner has been convicted for a lesser number of years than the maximum. For instance, the State/Union Territory could consider the release of prisoners who have been convicted or are under trial for offences for which prescribed punishment is up to 7 years or less, with or without fine and the prisoner has been convicted for a lesser number of years than the maximum. It is made clear that we leave it open for the High Powered Committee to determine the category of prisoners who should be released as aforesaid, depending upon the nature of offence, the number of years to which he or she has been sentenced or the severity of the offence with which he/she is charged with and is facing trial or any other relevant factor, which the Committee may consider appropriate." 12. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 13. From the perusal of the record it is seen that the place of incident is inside house of the complainant. The incident is said to have been witnessed by the family members of the complainant. Although there is some abusive language shown to have been used by the present appellant in the F.I.R. but the fact remains that the same does not fall under the domain of public view as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the aforementioned case Hitesh Sharma (supra). Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case has held as under: "14. Another key ingredient of the provision is insult or intimidation in "any place within public view". What is to be regarded as "place in public view" had come up for consideration before this Court in the judgment reported as Swaran Singh & Ors. v. State through Standing Counsel & Ors. 5. The Court had drawn distinction between the expression "public place" and "in any place within public view". It was held that if an offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen (2008) 8 SCC 435 by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, then the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. On the contrary, if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then it would not be an offence since it is not in the public view. The Court held as under: "28. On the contrary, if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then it would not be an offence since it is not in the public view. The Court held as under: "28. It has been alleged in the FIR that Vinod Nagar, the first informant, was insulted by Appellants 2 and 3 (by calling him a "chamar") when he stood near the car which was parked at the gate of the premises. In our opinion, this was certainly a place within public view, since the gate of a house is certainly a place within public view. It could have been a different matter had the alleged offence been committed inside a building, and also was not in the public view. However, if the offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. Also, even if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then also it would be an offence since it is in the public view. We must, therefore, not confuse the expression "place within public view" with the expression "public place". A place can be a private place but yet within the public view. On the other hand, a public place would ordinarily mean a place which is owned or leased by the Government or the municipality (or other local body) or gaon sabha or an instrumentality of the State, and not by private persons or private bodies." 15. As per the FIR, the allegations of abusing the informant were within the four walls of her building. It is not the case of the informant that there was any member of the public (not merely relatives or friends) at the time of the incident in the house. Therefore, the basic ingredient that the words were uttered "in any place within 8 public view" is not made out. In the list of witnesses appended to the charge-sheet, certain witnesses are named but it could not be said that those were the persons present within the four walls of the building. Therefore, the basic ingredient that the words were uttered "in any place within 8 public view" is not made out. In the list of witnesses appended to the charge-sheet, certain witnesses are named but it could not be said that those were the persons present within the four walls of the building. The offence is alleged to have taken place within the four walls of the building. Therefore, in view of the judgment of this Court in Swaran Singh, it cannot be said to be a place within public view as none was said to be present within the four walls of the building as per the FIR and/or charge-sheet." 14. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Atyendra Singh Rawat (supra) has considered the scope of maintainability of S.C.S.T. Act. In the above consideration of applications of S.C.S.T. Act when no offence is made out. The relevant paragraph is under:- "10 Therefore, preliminary enquiry has been dispensed with and power of investigating officer to arrest has been reiterated. Similarly Section 18 of the Atrocities Act has been reframed under Section 18 A (2) of the Amendment Act, 2018 whereby the provisions of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and its applicability has been taken out from the purview of the Atrocities Act, notwithstanding any order or direction of any Court. Still the power of judicial review and power to grant bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. if any offence is not made out prima facie, has not been curtailed and cannot be curtailed by any Act. Even otherwise, Article 21 of the Constitution of India wherein right to life and personal liberty are secured, no person can be debarred of such liberty at the instance of false complaint." 15. There is nothing on record to show that the incident was in a public view and is witnessed by some other persons of the same community apart from the friends and relatives to establish the offences. In such circumstances and considering the fact that the appellant is working as an Advocate in the District Court in Datia, this Court deems it appropriate to allow this application. Accordingly, the application is allowed. It is hereby directed that in the event of arrest, the appellant shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. In such circumstances and considering the fact that the appellant is working as an Advocate in the District Court in Datia, this Court deems it appropriate to allow this application. Accordingly, the application is allowed. It is hereby directed that in the event of arrest, the appellant shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Investigation Officer/trial Court, as the case may be with submission of written undertaking that he will abide by the terms and conditions of different circulars, orders as well as guidelines issued by Central Government, State Government as well as Local Administration for maintaining social distancing, hygiene etc to avoid Novel Corona Virus (COVID-19) pandemic and they will have to install Arogya Setu App, if not already installed. 16. This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the appellant:- 1. The appellant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him; 2. The appellant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be; 3. The appellant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be; 4. The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused; 5. The appellant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and 6. The appellant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be. 7. The appellant will inform the concerned S.H.O. of concerned Police Station about his residential address in the said area and it would be the duty of the Panel Lawyer to send E-copy of this order to SHO of concerned police station as well as Superintendent of Police, District concerned who shall inform the concerned SHO regarding the same. 17. Appeal stands allowed and disposed of. 18. E-copy of this order be provided to the appellants and E-copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance. It is made clear that E-copy of this order shall be treated as certified copy for practical purposes in respect of this order.