J. C. Doshi, J
1. Admit. Learned A.P.P. waives service of notice of admission for the respondent No.1 – State. learned Advocate Mr.Mehta waives service of notice of admission for respondent no.2.
2. By way of the present appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, the ‘Act, 1989’)., the appellant No.2 – original accused seeks anticipatory bail in connection with the F.I.R. being CR No.11208050221285 of 2022 registered with A-Division Police Station, Rajkot for the offences punishable under Sections 500, 501, 502, 469 and 120-B of the IPC and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(u) and 3(2)(va) of the Atrocity Act.
3. Heard learned Advocate for the respective parties.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner No.2 would that petitioner no.2 was serving as Co-Editor in Saurashtra Head Line and he was not the author of the alleged derogatory news item. He would submit that petitioner no.2 is now no more working with the said news agency. He would submit that in spite of the fact that whether the offence alleged under the IPC is made out or not; the petitioner no.2 has tendered the unconditional apology by way of an affidavit dated 23/04/2024. He would further submit that insofar as the offence punishable under the IPC is concerned, the maximum punishment which can be entailed is upto three years insofar as the offence under the IPC is concerned. He would further submit that since the petitioner no.2 is not the author of the alleged derogatory remarks / statement, it cannot be said that petitioner no.2 committed offence under the Atrocities Act. He would further submit that the person who is author of such derogatory remarks has been given regular bail by the concerned trial Court and therefore it is submitted that petitioner no.2 may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. He would further submit that petitioner no.2 is permanent resident of Rajkot City and though two antecedents were registered against him, in all he earned acquittal. He would further submit that petitioner no.2 would ready to co-operate with the investigation and there is no flight risk if the discretion would be exercised in favour of the petitioner no.2.
5. Learned Advocate Mr.Mehta vociferously objecting to grant of bail application would submit that complainant has not accepted the unconditional apology offered by the petitioner until he publicly publicized and that too by publishing apology in the newspaper. That apart, he would submit that the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of co-accused – Janki Nakum while deciding anticipatory bail application being CR.A No.857 of 2023 has given cogent and compulsive findings of the defamatory publication made in the Saurashtra Head Line. Thus, prima facie it is established that news item published in the Saurashtra News Headline lower the caste of the complainant as well as to castigate the slur upon the caste of the complainant who is Police Officer and therefore petitioner no.2 may not be released on anticipatory bail.
6. Learned APP for the respondent – State would submit that in the given facts and circumstances the Court may passed appropriate order.
7. In rejoinder, learned advocate for the petitioner no.2 Mr.Dagli states that in respect of the co-accused Mr.Janki who has filed CR.A No.857 of 2023 seeking anticipatory bail before this Court, the Hon’ble Apex Court has issued Notice and granted protection.
8. Having heard learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and considering the well famous parameters for grant or refusal of bail i.e. balancing personal liberty and investigational power of police; freedom of individual vis-a-vis security of State; and balance between individual liberty and interest of society etc., alongwith nature of accusation, nature of evidence in support of the accusation; severity of the punishment which conviction will entail; I am inclined to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner No.2 inter alia on the ground that petitioner No.2 is the Co-Editor in Saurashtra Head Line and he is not the author of the news item. The author has been granted regular bail by the trial Court and now whether such news item published in the Saurashtra Head Line would constitute the defamatory offence or not would be the question of trial. Since the offence alleged under the IPC would entail the maximum punishment upto three years and petitioner no.2 is not the author of the news item, prima facie, the allegations made under the Atrocities Act would not be attracted. Moreover, the petitioner no.2 has without prejudice to his rights and contentions of his defence, files an affidavit whereby offering unconditional apology to the complainant and assured that he will take sufficient care in future. To be noted that, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of other co-accused person viz., Mr.Janki Nakum has also stayed the proceedings of arrest and thus the present appeal deserves consideration.
9. This Court while exercising discretion in favour of the petitioner has taken into consideration law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. [2011] 1 SCC 694, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitutional Bench in the the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. v/s. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 665. This Court has also taken into consideration law laid down in the case of Sushila Agarwal v/s. State (NCT of Delhi [(2020) 5 SCC 1].
10. In the result, the present petition is allowed by directing that in the event of applicant herein being arrested pursuant to FIR registered as CR No.11208050221285 of 2022 registered with A-Division Police Station, Rajkot the petitioners shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) with one surety of like amount on the following conditions that the petitioner :
(a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever required;
(b) shall remain present at concerned Police Station on 01&02/05/2024 between 10.00 a.m. and 4.00 p.m.;
(c) shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer;
(d) shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police;
(e) shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the investigating officer and the court concerned and shall not change residence till the final disposal of the case till further orders;
(f) shall not leave India without the permission of the concerned trial court and if having passport shall deposit the same before the concerned trial court within a week; and
11. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed by the petitioner, the concerned learned Judge will be free to take appropriate action in the matter. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the above conditions in accordance with law. At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court while enlarging the petitioner on bail.
The appeal succeeds. Direct service is permitted.
