ORDER : 1. The aforesaid Appeal and bail application are being disposed of by this common order as they arise out of Crime No. 290/2021, registered at Police Station – City Kotwali, District – Bilaspur, C.G. for offence punishable under Sections 353 and 186 of the IPC and Section 3 of the Chhattisgarh Medicare Service Persons and Medicare Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage or Loss to Property) Act, 2010. 2. As per the prosecution case, a written complaint was made by complainant Tulachand Tande, Radiographer of CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur on 19th September, 2021 at Police Station – City Kotwali, alleging that on 18th September, 2021 while he was on duty on call of Dr. Vivek Sharma, at about 9.30 p.m., as the MRI machine was not working due to some technical problem, so there was delay in conducting MRI of Ravishankar Awasthi and owing to the said delay, the relative of Ravishankar Awasthi called the applicant through phone. The applicant is a public figure in the town. It is alleged that the applicant assaulted and abused the complainant while he was discharging his duties, so initially FIR was registered on 21st September, 2021 under Section 186, 353 and Section 3 of the Chhattisgarh Medicare Service Persons and Medicare Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage or Loss to Property) Act, 2010. Thereafter, the applicant was granted an interim anticipatory bail by this Court on 05.10.2021 till disposal of the trial. Even the complainant moved a fresh application on 28th September, 2021 so the offence under Section 31(r)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been added on 2nd December, 2021. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that he had no intention to humiliate or insult the complainant in any manner. It is further submitted that to attend the call of the doctor the present complainant was demanding illegal money and delaying the requisite test. So, the applicant has reached the hospital. It is next submitted that even the complainant was found guilty in the disciplinary enquiry of the team of the doctors that he has misused his position on different occasions. So, the applicant has reached the hospital. It is next submitted that even the complainant was found guilty in the disciplinary enquiry of the team of the doctors that he has misused his position on different occasions. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that after the incident he inquired about the misconduct of the complainant and obtained certain papers under the RTI Act and it is revealed that the complainant was even imposed penalty under disciplinary enquiry for stopping one increment in the year 2021 in which doctors of the team found that the complainant provoked others radiographers to avoid the duty and caused also indiscipline and not obeyed the instructions of the professors and head of the Radiology department. Counsel for the applicant further argued that after granting of ad-interim anticipatory bail as an afterthought a fresh application was obtained. It is next submitted that in the premises of the CIMS Hospital a police chowki has been established by the State and present complainant did not go to the police chowki for necessary help. Initially FIR has been registered after three days. He further submits that the applicant is a Public figure and social worker. When the complainant demanded a bribe of Rs.2,000/- for conducting MRI test, some altercation took place, but no offence of atrocities has been committed by him, therefore the learned Special Judge has wrongly rejected his application for grant of anticipatory bail, hence the same may be allowed. The applicant is ready to abide by all the terms and conditions imposed on him by this Court. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail. He would place reliance on Animireddy Venkata Ramana and Others Vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, (2008) 5 SCC 368 and refer to para 13 – that a first information report is not meant to be encyclopedic while considering the effect of some omissions in the First Information Report on the part of the informant, a Court cannot fail to take into consideration the probable physical and mental condition of the first informant. The similar view has been reiterated in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Krishna Master and others, (2010) 12 SCC 324 . Learned counsel for the State also submits that there is bar under Section 18 and 18(A) of the SC/ST Act, and the same is attracted against the applicant. The similar view has been reiterated in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Krishna Master and others, (2010) 12 SCC 324 . Learned counsel for the State also submits that there is bar under Section 18 and 18(A) of the SC/ST Act, and the same is attracted against the applicant. Offence is prima facie established, so the applicant cannot be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 5. Learned counsel for the objector strongly opposes the bail application and also refers to the judgment of Vilas Pandurang Pawar and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2012) 8 SCC 795 to submit that the Court is not expected to indulge in critical analysis of the evidence on record. When a provision has been enacted in a Special Act to protect the persons who belong to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and a bar has been imposed in granting bail under Section 438 of the Code, the provision in the Special Act cannot be easily brushed aside by elaborate discussion on the evidence. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 7. Learned counsel for the State fairly admits that in the matter of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar { (2014) 8 SCC 273 }, it was emphasized about the exercise of the powers of arrest and certain check list has also been provided. In the case diary there is no mention about the notices issued to the accused for answering his conduct. Hence this Court is of the view that before arrest, for sending a person into jail, various safeguards and guidelines have been propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, considering the liberty of an individual, in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 wherein it was observed thus : “90. A great ignominy, humiliation and disgrace is attached to the arrest. Arrest leads to many serious consequences not only for the accused but for the entire family and at times for the entire community. A great ignominy, humiliation and disgrace is attached to the arrest. Arrest leads to many serious consequences not only for the accused but for the entire family and at times for the entire community. Most people do not make any distinction between arrest at a pre-conviction stage or post-conviction stage.” In the matter of Siddharth v. State of U.P., (2022) 1 SCC 676 “it was held in para 9 that on consideration of Section 170 CrPC that it does not impose an obligation on the officer-in-charge to arrest each and every accused at the time of filing of the charge-sheet.” In the matter of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 it was emphasized that no arrest should be made only because the offence is non-bailable and cognizable and therefore, lawful for the police officers to do so and following were observed in para 11 & 12 about exercising the power of arrest and remand : “11.Our endeavour in this judgment is to ensure that police officers do not arrest the accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorize detention casually and mechanically. In order to ensure what we have observed above, we give the following directions: 11.1. All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41 Cr.P.C; 11.2. All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub-clauses under Section 41(1) (b)(ii); 11.3. The police officer shall forward the check list duly filled and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention; 11.4. The Magistrate while authorising detention of the accused shall peruse the report furnished by the police officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorise detention; 11.5. The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the institution of the case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing; 11.6. The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the institution of the case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing; 11.6. Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41-A CrPC be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case, which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing; 11.7. Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action, they shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted before the High Court having territorial jurisdiction. 11.8. Authorising detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the Judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court. 12. We hasten to add that the directions aforesaid shall not only apply to the cases under Section 498-A IPC or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the case in hand, but also such cases where offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years, whether with or without fine.” Even in the Atrocities Act, the Court has a duty to strike a balance and check the possibility of false accusations, if a person is able to show that, prima facie, he has not committed any attrocity against a member of SC and ST and that the allegation was malafide and prima facie false and that prima facie no case was made out, the bar under Section 18 of the Act is not attracted. In this regard, in the matter of Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 6 SCC 454 , the following has been observed: “50. We have no quarrel with the proposition laid down in the said judgment that persons committing offences under the Atrocities Act ought not to be granted anticipatory bail in the same manner in which the anticipatory bail is granted in other cases punishable with similar sentence. Still, the question remains whether in cases where there is no prima facie case under the Act, bar under Section 18 operates can be considered. Still, the question remains whether in cases where there is no prima facie case under the Act, bar under Section 18 operates can be considered. We are unable to read the said judgment as laying down that exclusion is applicable to such situations. If a person is able to show that, prima facie, he has not committed any atrocity against a member of SC and ST and that the allegation was mala fide and prima facie false and that prima facie no case was made out, we do not see any justification for applying Section 18 in such cases. Consideration in the mind of this Court in Balothia [State of M.P. v. Ram Kishna Balothia, (1995) 3 SCC 221 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 439] is that the perpetrators of atrocities should not be granted anticipatory bail so that they may not terrorise the victims. Consistent with this view, it can certainly be said that innocent persons against whom there was no prima facie case or patently false case cannot be subjected to the same treatment as the persons who are prima facie perpetrators of the crime. 53. It is well settled that a statute is to be read in the context of the background and its object. Instead of literal interpretation, the court may, in the present context, prefer purposive interpretation to achieve the object of law. Doctrine of proportionality is well known for advancing the object of Articles 14 and 21. A procedural penal provision affecting liberty of citizen must be read consistent with the concept of fairness and reasonableness.” Even in the matter of Prithvi Raj Chauhan Vs. Union of India, (2020) 4 SCC 727 a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the SC/ ST Act and further held that the application of the provisions of the SC/ST Act shall only apply after the prima facie satisfaction that an offence under the SC/ST Act has occurred, and consequently the absolute bar imposed on grant of anticipatory bail by virtue of Sections 18 and 18A would not apply in case the complainant fails to make a prima facie case for applicability of the provisions of the SC/ST Act. Article 17 of the Constitution of India expressly deals with the abolition of ‘untouchability’ and forbids its practice in any form. Article 17 of the Constitution of India expressly deals with the abolition of ‘untouchability’ and forbids its practice in any form. It also provides that the enforcement of any disability arising out of ‘untouchability’ shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law. Therefore, the offences enumerated under Section 3(1) arise out of the practice of ‘untouchability’. It is in this context that certain special provisions have been made in the SC/ST Act including Section 18 of the Act. The intent behind the exclusion of the applicability of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC” for brevity) in respect of the offences under the SC/ST Act is to be viewed in the context of the prevailing social conditions, which gives rise to such offences, and the apprehension that the perpetrators of such crimes would likely threaten and intimidate their victims and prevent or obstruct them in the prosecution of these offenders in case if the offenders are allowed to avail the benefit of anticipatory bail. The Statement of Objects and Reasons accompanying the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Bill, 1989, when it was introduced in the Parliament, explained the circumstances surrounding the enactment of the SC/ST Act and points to the evils in society which the statute aims to remedy. It graphically describes the social conditions which motivated the enactment of the SC/ST Act and it is further pointed out in the Statement of Objects and Reasons that when the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes assert their rights and demand statutory protection, the vested interests would attempt to cow them down and terrorise them. It is under these unfortunate circumstances that the bar has been placed on Section 438 of the CrPC.” Again in Prathvi Raj Chauhan (supra), it was observed in para 31 thus: “31. These facts, in my opinion ought to be kept in mind by courts which have to try and deal with offences under the Act. It is important to keep oneself reminded that while sometimes (perhaps mostly in urban areas) false accusations are made, those are not necessarily reflective of the prevailing and widespread social prejudices against members of these oppressed classes. It is important to keep oneself reminded that while sometimes (perhaps mostly in urban areas) false accusations are made, those are not necessarily reflective of the prevailing and widespread social prejudices against members of these oppressed classes. Significantly, the amendment of 2016, in the expanded definition of “atrocity”, also lists pernicious practices (under Section 3) including forcing the eating of inedible matter, dumping of excreta near the homes or in the neighbourhood of members of such communities and several other forms of humiliation, which members of such Scheduled Caste communities are subjected to. All these considerations far outweigh the petitioners' concern that innocent individuals would be subjected to what are described as arbitrary processes of investigation and legal proceedings, without adequate safeguards. The right to a trial with all attendant safeguards are available to those accused of committing offences under the Act; they remain unchanged by the enactment of the amendment.” In Rahna Jalal v. State of Kerala, (2021) 1 SCC 733: the principles have been reiterated and explained in para 23 and 25 : “23. The provisions of Sections 18 and 18-A have been interpreted by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in [Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India, (2020) 4 SCC 727 : Arun Mishra, J. speaking for himself and Vineet Saran, J. while construing these provisions, observed that: (SCC p. 751, para 11) “11. Concerning the applicability of provisions of Section 438 CrPC, it shall not apply to the cases under the 1989 Act. However, if the complaint does not make out a prima facie case for applicability of the provisions of the 1989 Act, the bar created by Sections 18 and 18-A(i) shall not apply. We have clarified this aspect while deciding the review petitions.” 25. Thus, even in the context of legislation, such as the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, where a bar is interposed by the provisions of Section 18 and sub-section (2) of Section 18-A on the application of Section 438 CrPC, this Court has held that the bar will not apply where the complaint does not make out “a prima facie case” for the applicability of the provisions of the Act. A statutory exclusion of the right to access remedies for bail is construed strictly, for a purpose. Excluding access to bail as a remedy, impinges upon human liberty. A statutory exclusion of the right to access remedies for bail is construed strictly, for a purpose. Excluding access to bail as a remedy, impinges upon human liberty. Hence, the decision in Chauhan [Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India, (2020) 4 SCC 727 : (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 657] held that the exclusion will not be attracted where the complaint does not prima facie indicate a case attracting the applicability of the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.” 8. In the present case, the incident took place on 18th September, 2021 in the CIMS Hospital where a police chowki has been established for avoiding such type of incident, however, no action has been taken by the concerned police and no offence has been registered by the officer posted in the said police chowki at CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur. The allegation raised by the applicant is that an illegal demand has been made by the complainant, therefore, some altercation took place. Initially this Court has granted ad interim bail, thereafter offence under the Atrocities Act has been added. Even in the statement of Dr. Vivek Sharma, there is no whisper about allegation of attrocity made by the complainant. 9. Taking into consideration that the FIR has not been lodged promptly even though Police Chowki is situated in the same premises, further in the earlier offence ad interim bail was granted by this Court, thereafter offence of atrocities has been added, so considering all the aspects of the matter, this Court is of the view that the bar under Section 18 & 18A of the Atrocities Act is not attracted against the applicant and applicant has a strong case for his defence. 10. For the foregoing, I am of the view that present is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. Accordingly, CRA No. 450 of 2022 is allowed. 11. 10. For the foregoing, I am of the view that present is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. Accordingly, CRA No. 450 of 2022 is allowed. 11. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer with the following conditions:- “(i) he shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. (iii) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (iv) he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (v) he shall not contact the complainant in any manner.” 12. Interim order granted earlier by the co-ordinate Bench is made absolute. MCRCA No. 1292 of 2021 is accordingly disposed of. 13. A copy of this order be sent to all the District and Sessions Judges as also the Director General of Police of the State so that the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Arnesh Kumar (Supra) can be complied with. The DGP of the State shall issue appropriate guidelines to all the Superintendent of Police for necessary compliance. It may be noted that even in attrocities cases arrest should not be made in a mechanical manner and the principles laid down in the matter of Arnesh Kumar (Supra) should be adopted. It is not mandated that at time of filing of charge sheet the accused must be arrested. The law only requires a notice to be sent to the accused for his personal appearance before the concerned Court.