JUDGMENT : RANJAN SHARMA, J. 1. Three bail petitioners (namely, Anil Kumar Sood, Shivam Sood and Govind Singh and another employee, namely Bobby, who belonged to SC category) have come up before this Court seeking regular bail, under Sections 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure originating from F.I.R. No. 19 of 2024, dated 12.02.2024 registered with Police Station Sadar, Shimla for offences under Sections 354, 506, 509 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 3(1) (r) and Section 3(1) (w) (i) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. The case of the four bail petitioners, namely, Anil Kumar Sood in Cr. M.P. (M) No. 240 of 2024, Shivam Sood in Cr. M.P. (M) No. 241 of 2024, Govind Singh in Cr. MP (M) No. 245 of 2024 and Ms Bobby in Cr. M.P. (M) No. 240 of 2024, as set up by them, is that on 30.01.2024, one lady, referred to as complainant ‘X’ alongwith her daughter came to the shop of the bail petitioners, namely, Arun Kumar Sood and Shivam Sood in which Govind Singh and Ms Bobby were employees, at about 3.30-4.00 p.m. It is averred that on reaching the shop, the complainant ‘X’ as referred to above, abused the petitioners and another employee. The bail petitioners have set up a case that the aforesaid complainant ‘X’ had visited the shop out of revenge for the reason that the bail petitioner, Anil Kumar Sood, has instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the Judicial Magistrate, Shimla, in relation to bouncing of two cheques of Rs. 50,000/- each against the complainant ‘X’. It is further averred that in two other cheque bounce cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act the bail petitioner, namely, Anil Kumar Sood, had got issued the notice under the statute against aforesaid complainant ‘X’. 50,000/- each against the complainant ‘X’. It is further averred that in two other cheque bounce cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act the bail petitioner, namely, Anil Kumar Sood, had got issued the notice under the statute against aforesaid complainant ‘X’. In addition to this, it is averred that the bail petitioner, Anil Kumar Sood, intends to file some more complaints against the complainant ‘X’ in relation to other monetary transactions/liabilities which are outstanding/due from the complainant: (i) In this background, it is averred that on 07.02.2024, the complainant ‘X’ had called the bail petitioner, namely, Anil Kumar Sood, from mobile number of one Asha and then from mobile number of another Jai Malla forcing the bail petitioner, Anil Kumar Sood, to withdraw the cases instituted by him against her under the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is further averred, once two of the proceedings under Negotiable Instruments Act were initiated and some others were in process of being initiated to seek enforcement of his claim(s) and in these circumstances, there was no question of budging to the unlawful dictates of the complainant, therefore, on 12.02.2024, the complainant ‘X’ submitted an on-line complaint for registration of F.I.R. to the Superintendent of Police, Shimla and thereafter the aforesaid complaint was transferred to the concerned Police Station leading to the registration of an F.I.R. No. 19 of 2024, as referred to above. (ii) In Para 7 of the bail application, the bail petitioners have made an averment that this complainant ‘X’ had got another F.I.R. No. 104 of 2018, registered against more than 22 people, which is pending trial before the Learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, for offences under Section 3 of the SC & ST Act and Sections 354, 376 and 506 IPC. It is in this background, that the bail petitioners have approached this Court seeking regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.] 3. (i) In Cr. M.P. (M) No. 240 of 2024 titled as Anil Kumar Sood vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, Cr. M.P. (M) No. 241 of 2024 titled as Shivam Sood vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, was listed before this Court on 15.02.2024 and on surrender by the bail petitioners, their prayer for interim bail was taken up. Upon consideration, the interim bail was granted to these bail petitioners by this Court. 3. M.P. (M) No. 241 of 2024 titled as Shivam Sood vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, was listed before this Court on 15.02.2024 and on surrender by the bail petitioners, their prayer for interim bail was taken up. Upon consideration, the interim bail was granted to these bail petitioners by this Court. 3. (ii) Likewise, the bail petitioner, Govind Singh and Ms Bobby who were the employees of bail petitioners no. 1 and 2, namely Anil Kumar Sood and Shivam Sood filed Cr. M.P. (M) No. 245 of 2024 titled as Govind Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Cr. M.P. (M) No. 252 of 2024 titled as Ms Bobby vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, which were listed before this Court on 16.02.2024 and on surrender, their prayer for interim bail was considered and was accordingly granted by this Court. 4. Upon issuance of notice by this Court, the State Authorities/Police have filed a Status Report dated 28.02.2024. Thereafter, the matter was listed before this Court on 04.03.2024, on which date the Second Status Report dated 4.3.2024 on instructions of the Additional Superintendent of Police (HQ), Shimla, District Shimla, was filed. The matter was then again listed on 13.03.2024, on which date the Third Status Report dated 13.03.2024 on the instructions of the Additional Superintendent of Police (HW), Shimla, District Shimla was taken on record. 5. Perusal of the third status report filed by the State Authorities/Police contains pari-materia facts and elaborations, which existed in the earlier status report. A perusal of the status report reveals that the F.I.R. No. 19 of 2024 dated 12.02.2024 was registered at Police Station, Shimla in view of the complaint submitted by complainant-X on 07.02.2024, whereby the complainant had referred to the incident of 30.01.2024 as referred to above. Status report also narrates that the complainant had registered an F.I.R. No. 104 of 2018 in Police Station, New Shimla under Section 3(1) of the SC & ST Act and under Section 354, 506 and 509 against more than 22 persons, which is pending trial before the Sessions Judge, Shimla. In the status report and the complaint has admitted that the bail petitioner, Anil Kumar Sood is her enemy and used to harass her for which the F.I.R No. 104 of 2018 was registered against him and others, which is pending trial before the Sessions Judge, Shimla. In the status report and the complaint has admitted that the bail petitioner, Anil Kumar Sood is her enemy and used to harass her for which the F.I.R No. 104 of 2018 was registered against him and others, which is pending trial before the Sessions Judge, Shimla. The status report filed by the State Authorities also narrate a grave contradictions in the statement of the complainant-X, which at the one hand states that the complainant is running a Coaching Centre and has handsome income and she has never demanded money from anyone but in the later part of the status report the complainant-X has herself admitted that she has liability of Rs. One lakh accruing under Negotiable Instruments Act. The status report further reveals that reference to F.I.R. No. 104 of 2018 which is pending trial before the Sessions Judge, Shimla wherein once Shri Dinesh Chandel and Tara Sharma were also allegedly impleaded as accused in FIR No. 104 of 2018 then, the complainant tried to resolve and settle the matter in the context of F.I.R. No. 104 of 2018 with two out of 22 persons, to whom, the complainant has issued cheques on 10/11.05.2023 for Rs. 1,50,000/- each but the status report specifically reveals that these cheques issued by the complainant-X, in favor of Dinesh Sharma and Tara Sharma have also bounded on being presented to the bank concerned. So far as the complaint dated 30.01.2024 and the status report reveals that the bail petitioners, namely, Anil Kumar Sood and Shivam Sood have entered into a verbal compromise in the police station inter-se between them and thereafter both the parties left the Police Station after amicable settlement. The status report also has grave inherent contradictions in the statement of the complainant-X who at the first stage stated that the bail petitioner Anil Sood had maltreated her near Canara Bank but in the later part she has changed her stand by saying that the aforesaid maltreatment was extended by the bail petitioner, Anil Sood inside his shop. In the background of the status report learned State counsel has stated at bar that custodial interrogation of all the bail petitioners is not required by the State authorities/police. In the background of the status report learned State counsel has stated at bar that custodial interrogation of all the bail petitioners is not required by the State authorities/police. In the above background, the relevant provisions of Section 3(1)(r) and Section 3(1) (w) (i) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, reads as under: Section 3(1)(r): Intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view: Section 3(1)(w)(i): Intentionally touches a woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, knowing that she belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, when such act of touching is of a sexual nature and is without the recipient’s consent. 6. In addition to this, the provisions of Sections 354 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code read as under: 354. Sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment: (1) A man committing any of the following acts: (i) physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures. (ii) a demand or request for sexual favours. (iii) showing pornography against the will of a woman. (iv) making sexually coloured remarks, shall be guilty of the offence of sexual harassment. (2) Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (i) or clause (ii) or clause (iii) of sub-section (1) shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. (3) Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (iv) of sub- section (1) shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both. 506. Punishment for criminal intimidation: Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc. 506. Punishment for criminal intimidation: Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc. And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both. 7. In the background of the statutory provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. Act and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1) (w) (i) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 354 and 506 of IPC, these offences are cognizable and the claim of a suspect-accused for pre-arrest bail, is to be examined within the parameters prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure and also the broad parameters mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, regulating bail anticipatory bail (under Section 438) in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 , Ram Govind Upadhyay vs. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598 , Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528 , Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashish Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 ; reiterated in P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24 , mandating that the anticipatory bail is to be granted as an exception where the case alleged is frivolous or groundless. It has also been mandated that incase, there is a prima-facie or reasonable grounds exist which lead to believe or point towards the accusation then, the anticipatory bail is liable to be rejected and the refusal of anticipatory bail does not amounts to the denial of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It has also been mandated that incase, there is a prima-facie or reasonable grounds exist which lead to believe or point towards the accusation then, the anticipatory bail is liable to be rejected and the refusal of anticipatory bail does not amounts to the denial of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. These parameters have been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State of NCT Delhi, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , CBI vs. Santosh Karnani, (2023) 6 SCALE 250; which have been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Dharamraj, 2023 SCC Online SC 1085, which read as under: (i) Whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence. (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation. (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction. (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail. (v) Character, behavior, means, position and standing of the accused. (vi) Likelihood of the offence being repeated. (vii) Reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced. (viii) Danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. 8. In normal parlance, the principle of law is that bail is a rule and jail is an exception. However, this Court is conscious of the fact that the power under Section 438 is an extraordinary power and the same has to be exercised sparingly and the privilege of pre-arrest bail is to be to be granted in exceptional cases. It is trite law that anticipatory bail is not be granted as a rule and cannot be claimed as of right. It is trite law that while considering the prayer for bail [pre-arrest bail or regular bail], the factum of prolonged pre-conviction incarceration is also to be taken into account. While considering the prayer for bail, the balance has to be carved out between the liberty of an accused vis-a-vis the societal interest, including the danger of the justice being thwarted in case the bail is granted. 9. Anticipatory bail is to be granted, only if, exceptional circumstances exist and the denial of pre-arrest would amount to denial of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 9. Anticipatory bail is to be granted, only if, exceptional circumstances exist and the denial of pre-arrest would amount to denial of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The claim for anticipatory bail may carry weight, in case, the accusation is frivolous and groundless with the object of either injuring or humiliating or where a person has falsely been eroded in the crime. Even such a claim is to be tested in the background of self-imposed restrains or broad parameters mandated by law, as referred to hereinabove). On the other hand, anticipatory bail is not to be granted as of right, when, there is a prima facie case or reasonable grounds exist pointing out towards accusation. 10. This Court is also conscious of the fact that as per the mandate of law, in Criminal Appeal No. 3840 of 2023, titled as Saumya Churasia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, decided on 14.12.2023, while considering the prayer for bail, the Court is not required to weigh evidence collected by the Investigating Agency meticulously, nonetheless, the Court should keep in mind the nature of accusation, nature of evidence collected in support thereof, the severity of punishment prescribed for alleged offences, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused during trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the large interests of public/state. In this background, while testing the claim for bail, the Court is required to form a prima-facie opinion in the context of the broad-parameters referred to above, without delving into the evidence on merits, as it may tend to prejudice the rights of the accused as well as the prosecution. 11. In the entirety of the facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove and the stand of State Authorities, as disclosed in the three status reports and in the context of statutory provisions and the mandate of law referred to above, this Court is of the considered view that the interim protection dated 15.02.2024 [in Cr. M.P. (M) No. 241 of 2024 and Cr. M.P. (M) No. 240 of 2024] and the interim order dated 16.02.2024 [in Cr. M.P. (M) No. 245 of 2024 and Cr. M.P. (M) No. 241 of 2024 and Cr. M.P. (M) No. 240 of 2024] and the interim order dated 16.02.2024 [in Cr. M.P. (M) No. 245 of 2024 and Cr. M.P. (M) No. 252 of 2024] granted by this Court, is made absolute, for the following reasons: (i) The prima facie opinion based on the status reports filed by the State Authorities and the complaint does not points out any prima-facie accusation or the reasonable grounds against the bail petitioner. (ii) The entire prosecution story and the complaint submitted by the complainant-“X” become doubtful, when, the complainant has admitted in the complaint and the FIR that she had inimical relations with the bail petitioner, Anil Kumar Sood. That being so, the entire story turns out to be doubtful. The inimical behavior/conduct of the complainant ‘X’ is borne out from the status report firstly, as the bail petitioner, Anil Kumar Sood, has instituted a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act before the Judicial Magistrate, Shimla, in relation to bouncing of two cheques of Rs. 50,000/- each against complainant ‘X’ and in two other cheque bounce cases under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act the bail petitioner, namely, Anil Kumar Sood, had got the notices issued under the statute against the complainant ‘X’. In addition to this, it is averred that the bail petitioner, Anil Kumar Sood, intends to file some more complaints against the complainant ‘X’ in relation to other monetary transactions/liabilities which are due/outstanding due from the complainant. In addition to this, it is averred that the bail petitioner, Anil Kumar Sood, intends to file some more complaints against the complainant ‘X’ in relation to other monetary transactions/liabilities which are due/outstanding due from the complainant. Even the status report, reveals that on 7.02.2024, the complainant ‘X’ had called bail petitioner, namely, Anil Kumar Sood, from mobile number of one Asha and then from mobile number of another Jai Malla forcing the petitioner Anil Kumar Sood, to withdraw the cases instituted by him against her under the Negotiable Instruments Act and in these circumstances there was no question of budging to the unlawful dictates of the complainant ; and secondly, even the inimical behavior of complainant-X, is borne out from the fact that the complainant had registered an F.I.R. No. 104 of 2018 against more than 22 people which is pending trial before the Session Judge, Shimla and out of 22 people, the complainant for reasons best known to her had issued two cheques on 10/11.05.2023 to the accused in the said FIR namely, Dinesh and Tara Sharma soliciting to depose in her favour but these cheques were also bounced resulting in same fate, similar to the fate of cheques which have been put for encashment but were bounced leading to registration of complaint by the bail petitioner Anil Sood against the complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Thus, the inimical behavior and conduct of the complainant herself is sufficient to make the accusation doubtful, against the bail petitioners. (iii) The inherent material contradictions in the complaint made by the complainant regarding the alleged offence is doubtful, when in the first hand, she states that the alleged offence took place near the Canara Bank but later she shifts her stand that the alleged incident occurred in the shop of the bail petitioner Anil Kumar Sood which is far away. (iv) Moreover, this Court is of the view that once the accusation is prima facie not made and the status report reveals that on 30.01.2024 the matter was sorted out in the Police Station and allegedly no fresh incident had taken place thereafter. In these circumstances once even the State Authorities have not impressed upon the need for Section 15-A of the Act, then, the prayer of the bail petitioners is tenable. In these circumstances once even the State Authorities have not impressed upon the need for Section 15-A of the Act, then, the prayer of the bail petitioners is tenable. (v) There is no reasonable ground to believe the accusation under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC & ST Act, when, the complaint and the prosecution story, suffers from inherent contradictions regarding the alleged place of occurrence whereby, on one hand she states that the alleged incident took place near Canara bank and then by taking a complete somersault, she states that the alleged incident took place in the shop of bail petitioner, which locations are far away from each other. Moreover, there is nothing on record in the alleged complaint-FIR that the bail petitioners have had intentionally insulted or intimidated the complainant with intension to her. Rather, the video clipping given by the bail petitioner to the police belies the entire complaint, whereby, it is the complainant-X, who had initiated and had indulged in humiliating the bail petitioner, Anil Kumar Sood. Further, alleged place of occurrence does not comes within the ambit of public view. In these circumstances, the petitioner appears to be falsely implicated, at this stage. (vi) Further, accusation under Section 3(1)(w)(i) is also prima facie not attracted, when, the bail petitioners have neither indulged in any such activity nor the activity, as contemplated under Sections 354, 506 and 509 IPC. Even, the status reports and the prosecution story do not support the allegation in the complaint made by the complainant at this stage which may be subject matter of trial. In view of the above extracts, once the prima facie accusation appears to be frivolous and is highly doubtful, then, the bail petitioners are entitled to be safeguarded at this stage, subject to their facing the investigation and the proceedings-trial, if any thereafter. 12. Status report filed by the State Authorities/ police does not spells out any need for the custodial interrogation of the bail petitioner. 13. The status reports reveal that incompliance to the orders dated 15.2.2024 [in Cr. M.P. (M) No. 240 of 2024 and Cr. M.P. (M) No. 241 of 2024] and the orders dated 16.2.2024 [in Cr. M.P. (M) No. 241 of 2024 and Cr. M.P. (M) No. 252 of 2024], passed by this Court, the bail petitioners have joined the investigation and they are participating/cooperating in the investigation with the police authorities. 14. M.P. (M) No. 240 of 2024 and Cr. M.P. (M) No. 241 of 2024] and the orders dated 16.2.2024 [in Cr. M.P. (M) No. 241 of 2024 and Cr. M.P. (M) No. 252 of 2024], passed by this Court, the bail petitioners have joined the investigation and they are participating/cooperating in the investigation with the police authorities. 14. Even the State Authorities have not expressed anything adverse regarding the past antecedents/history or any apprehension about the petitioners being fleeing away. 15. The State Authorities have not expressed anything adverse that the bail petitioners have tampered with the evidence or the witnesses in any manner or have caused any inducement, threat or promise to any person or persons connected with the case whatsoever. 16. The State authorities/Police has not reported anything that the grant of bail, may lead to thwarting the justice and societal interests in any manner. 17. The observations and the discussion shall apply to all the bail petitioners herein. However, so far as the bail petitioner, Bobby [in Cr. M.P. (M) No. 252 of 2024], is concerned, it is observed that once the aforesaid bail petitioner herself belongs to the Schedule Caste category, then, registration of F.I.R. under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 therefore, the accusation under Section 3 of the SC & ST Act cannot be impressed upon to the disadvantage of Ms. Bobby, the bail petitioner. 18. The observations made in this judgment shall not be construed in any manner as an indictive of findings, for purposes of investigation and the proceedings thereafter, including the trial, if any against either of the parties herein. 19. Petitioner is permitted to produce/use copy of this order, downloaded from the web-page of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, before authorities concerned, and the said authorities shall not insist for production of a certified copy, but if required, may verify passing of order from Website of the High Court. 20. Given as above, all the four bail petitions as well as pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed off.