# Salman Tanveer v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 1 ILRA 1082
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-12-18
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 3524 of 2023
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/salman-tanveer-v-state-of-u-p-anr-50827
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989 - Sections 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha),
3(2)(V) & 18 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 332,
353, 342 & 364 - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 438 - Constitution
of India, 1950- Article 21 - Appellant
challenged rejection of anticipatory bail in Case
Crime No. 433 of 2022 for offences under SC/ST
Act and IPC, alleging incident occurred at night
inside an electricity office, not in public view. Court
held: (1) Section 18 of SC/ST Act bars anticipatory
bail, but bar is not absolute; it yields to
constitutional protections under Article 21 in
exceptional cases (Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs U.O.I.,
(2020) 4 SCC 727). (2) Offences under Sections
3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act require
insult or intimidation in public view; private
incident inside office at night, without public
humiliation, does not attract these provisions
(Hitesh Verma Vs St. of Uttarakhand, (2020) 10
SCC 710). (3) IPC offences (Sections 147, 148,
149, 323, 504, 506, 332, 353, 342, 364) may not
apply without public element or evidence of
assembly, rioting, or assault on public servant;
private dispute lacks prima facie criminality (Gopal
Mishra Vs St. of U.P., Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No.
16343 of 2020). (4) Trial court erred in
mechanically applying Section 18 bar without
assessing public view requirement or Article 21
rights (Dataram Singh Vs St. of U.P., (2018) 3 SCC
22). (5) Appellant entitled to anticipatory bail; in
event of arrest, released on Rs. 50,000/- bond
with
conditions
for
cooperation
and
nonintimidation. Impugned order set aside; appeal
allowed. (Paras 5-13)

Appeal Allowed.

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1082 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
bail bonds shall stand discharged and she
shall be set free, unless she is wanted in
any other case, subject to compliance of
section 437A Cr.P.C.
----------
(2024) 1 ILRA 1082
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 18.12.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 3524 of 2023

Salman Tanveer ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Appellant:
Mohd. Amir Khan, Surya Prakash

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989 - Sections 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha),
3(2)(V) & 18 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 332,
353, 342 & 364 - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 438 - Constitution
of India, 1950- Article 21 - Appellant
challenged rejection of anticipatory bail in Case
Crime No. 433 of 2022 for offences under SC/ST
Act and IPC, alleging incident occurred at night
inside an electricity office, not in public view. Court
held: (1) Section 18 of SC/ST Act bars anticipatory
bail, but bar is not absolute; it yields to
constitutional protections under Article 21 in
exceptional cases (Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs U.O.I.,
(2020) 4 SCC 727). (2) Offences under Sections
3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act require
insult or intimidation in public view; private
incident inside office at night, without public
humiliation, does not attract these provisions
(Hitesh Verma Vs St. of Uttarakhand, (2020) 10
SCC 710). (3) IPC offences (Sections 147, 148,
149, 323, 504, 506, 332, 353, 342, 364) may not
apply without public element or evidence of
assembly, rioting, or assault on public servant;
private dispute lacks prima facie criminality (Gopal
Mishra Vs St. of U.P., Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No.
16343 of 2020). (4) Trial court erred in
mechanically applying Section 18 bar without
assessing public view requirement or Article 21
rights (Dataram Singh Vs St. of U.P., (2018) 3 SCC
22). (5) Appellant entitled to anticipatory bail; in
event of arrest, released on Rs. 50,000/- bond
with
conditions
for
cooperation
and
nonintimidation. Impugned order set aside; appeal
allowed. (Paras 5-13)

Appeal Allowed.

List of Cases cited:

1. Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs U.O.I., (2020) 4 SCC
727 (Para 7)

2. Gopal Mishra Vs St. of U.P., Crl. Misc. Writ
Petition No. 16343 of 2020 (Para 7)

3. Hitesh Verma Vs St. of Uttarakhand, (2020)
10 SCC 710 (Para 7)

4. Dataram Singh Vs St. of U.P., (2018) 3 SCC
22 (Para 10)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
appellant as well as learned A.G.A. for the
State and perused the record.

2. The present appeal has been filed with
a prayer to allow the appeal as well as to set
aside
the judgement and order dated
30.10.2023 passed by learned Special Judge,
S.C./S.T. Act, Lucknow in Anticipatory Bail
Application No.8326 of 2023, arising out of
Case Crime No.433 of 2022, under Sections
147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 332, 353, 342,
364 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha)
and 3(2)(V) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station
Thakurganj, District Lucknow.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that
the complainant is an S.D.O. of Electricity
1 All. Salman Tanveer Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1083
Department and on the date of incident, the
accused alongwith his companions had
kidnapped the informant and thereafter,
they
abused
him
in
caste
abusive
languages, beaten him and also threatened
him to life.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant
submits that the entire prosecution story is
false and fabricated. No case under the
Sections of 3(1)(Da)(Dha) of S.C./S.T. Act
is attracted against the appellant. As per the
prosecution story, the incident is alleged to
have taken place at night inside the
electricity office, which is neither a public
place nor there was any public view and the
instant appellant was not present at the time
of the alleged incident. He further submits
that even the offence under the provisions
of I.P.C. is also not attracted against the
appellant. Thus, the entire prosecution story
appears to be false and lodged with
malafide intention to implicate the entire
family of the appellant.

5. He further submits that by means of
the impugned order dated 30.10.2023, the
application seeking anticipatory bail by the
present appellant came to be rejected by
learned trial Court on the ground that
entertaining
such
application
for
anticipatory bail is specifically barred and
excluded by virtue of Section 18 of
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
(hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1989').

6. Being germane to the present
controversy, Section 18 of SC/ST Act is
quoted herein below :

"18. Section 438 of the Code not
to apply to persons committing an offence
under the Act.?Nothing in section 438 of
the Code shall apply in relation to any case
involving the arrest of any person on an
accusation of having committed an offence
under this Act."

7. He further submits that the
aforesaid impugned order dated 30.10.2023
is patently illegal insofar as the same has
been passed without considering the law
laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in
Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs. Union of India
and Other; (2020) 4 SCC 727 and
judgment rendered by a Division Bench of
this Court in the case of Gopal Mishra Vs.
State of U.P. and Others; Criminal Misc.
Writ Petition No.16343 of 2020. He
further submits that the incident does not
took place in the public view and public
place, therefore, the appellant may be given
benefit of judgment rendered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand,
(2020) 10 SCC 710, wherein in para 13 and
18, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has opined
as under:-

"13. All insults or intimidations to
a person will not be an offence under the
Act unless such insult or intimidation is on
account of victim belonging to Scheduled
Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The object of the
Act is to improve the socio-economic
conditions of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes as they are denied
number of civil rights. Thus, an offence
under the Act would be made out when a
member of the vulnerable section of the
Society
is
subjected
to
indignities,
humiliations and harassment. The assertion
of title over the land by either of the parties
is not due to either the indignities,
humiliations or harassment. Every citizen
has a right to avail their remedies in
accordance with law. Therefore, if the
appellant or his family members have
invoked jurisdiction of the civil court, or
1084 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that respondent No.2 has invoked the
jurisdiction of the civil court, then the
parties are availing their remedies in
accordance with the procedure established
by law. Such action is not for the reason
that respondent No.2 is member of
Scheduled Caste.

18. Therefore, offence under the
Act is not established merely on the fact
that the informant is a member of
Scheduled Caste unless there is an
intention to humiliate a member of
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for
the reason that the victim belongs to such
caste. In the present case, the parties are
litigating over possession of the land. The
allegation of hurling of abuses is against
a person who claims title over the
property. If such person happens to be a
Scheduled Caste, the offence under
Section 3(1)(r) of the Act is not made
out."

8. On the basis of above, he further
submits that denial of anticipatory bail on
the basis of bar contained in Section 18
of
Act,
1989
is
not
sustainable.
Therefore, the appellant is entitled for
anticipatory bail.

9. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has
vehemently
opposed
the
prayer
by
submitting that Section 18 of SC/ST Act
provides specific bar, in order to prevent
and protect atrocities being committed in
respect of members belonging to SC/ST
Community. Therefore, such enactment
should be construed strictly and in this
view of the matter, no fault with the
impugned order can be found.

10. Considering the arguments
advanced by learned counsel for the
parties and going through the contents of
the impugned order passed by the trial
court dated 30.10.2023 and the contents of
the F.I.R., as the alleged incident took place
at night and also inside the electricity office
and not in the public place nor there was
any public view, thus, no question arose
that there is any public humiliation caused
to the appellant for lodging the case under
Section 3(1)(Da)(Dha) of S.C./S.T. Act and
even there is nothing to show that other
Sections of the I.P.C. are also attracted in
the case of the appellant and also
considering the Section 18 of the Act, 1989
which provides that there is a bar to grant
anticipatory bail as well as considering the
law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court
in the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan
(Supra) and judgment rendered by a
Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Gopal
Mishra
(Supra)
and
further
considering
the
Article
21
of
the
Constitution of India and the law laid down
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Dataram Singh vs. State of UP and
another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22
and Hitesh Verma (Supra), this Court is
of the view that the learned court below has
failed to appreciate the material available
on record. The order passed by the court
below is liable to be set aside.

11. Accordingly, the appeal is
allowed.
Consequently,
the
impugned
judgment and order dated 30.10.2023
passed by learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T.
Act,
Lucknow
in
Anticipatory
Bail
Application No.8326 of 2023, arising out
of Case Crime No.433 of 2022, under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 332,
353, 342, 364 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(Da),
3(1)(Dha) and 3(2)(V) of S.C./S.T. Act,
Police
Station
Thakurganj,
District
Lucknow, rejecting the anticipatory bail of
the appellant, is hereby set aside and
reversed.
1 All. Ram Prasad Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1085

12. It is directed that in the event of
arrest of the appellant, namely, Salman
Tanveer in Case Crime No.433 of 2022,
under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504,
506, 332, 353, 342, 364 I.P.C. and Section
3(1)(Da),
3(1)(Dha)
and
3(2)(V)
of
S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Thakurganj,
District Lucknow, he shall be released
forthwith by the Station House Officer of
the police station concerned, on his
furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/-
with the following condition:-

(i) That the accused-appellant
shall
make
himself
available
for
interrogation by police authorities as and
when required and will cooperate with the
investigation;

(ii) That the accused-appellant
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; and

(iii) That the accused-appellant
shall not leave India without the previous
permission of the Court.

13. It is made clear that the
observation made herein above are only
confined to the disposal of the instant
criminal
appeal
i.e. anticipatory bail
application only and has no effect on the
ultimate merit of the case.
----------
(2024) 1 ILRA 1085
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.11.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SADHNA RANI
(THAKUR), J.

Criminal Appeal No. 8217 of 2023
Ram Prasad ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Appellant:
Pt. S.P. Sharma, Deepika Sharma

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Virendra Singh Patel

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 156(3), 200,
202 & 203 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 420, 323, 504 & 506 - Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(Da)
& 3(1)(Dha) - Appellant challenged dismissal
of complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. for
offences under IPC and SC/ST Act, alleging
bribery for job placement. Court held: (1) At
dismissal stage under Section 203 Cr.P.C.,
Magistrate must assess prima facie case from
complaint, witness St.ments under Sections 200
and 202, and investigation report; no detailed
evaluation required (Ghanshyam Singh Vs St. of
U.P., 2007 (3) JIC 599 (All)). (2) "Sufficient
ground for proceeding" means prima facie
satisfaction that complaint is not false or
vexatious; Magistrate's discretion is judicial, not
substitutable by High Court (Nagawwa Vs
Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi, 1976 Law Suit
(SC) 189). (3) Appellant's claim of paying Rs.
50,000/- for job lacked supporting evidence
(e.g.,
bank
St.ments);
age
(42
years)
disqualified him from contract job (Chandra Deo
Singh Vs Prakash Chandra Bose, AIR 1968 SC
117). (4) Witnesses' St.ments were vague; no
proof of public humiliation for SC/ST Act
applicability; simple injuries insufficient for
offences (Nirmaljit Singh Hoon Vs St. of West
Bengal, (1973) 3 SCC 753). (5) Dismissal order
reflected prima facie evaluation; no error
warranting interference (Dilip Kumar Vs Brajraj
Srivastava, Criminal Appeal No. 561 of 2012).
Appeal dismissed. (Paras 7-25)

Criminal Appeal Dismissed.

List of Cases cited:

1. Ghanshyam Singh Vs St. of U.P., 2007 (3) JIC
599 (All) (Para 7)