The Kerala High Court highlighted that many innocent people had been wrongfully accused under the SC/ST (POA) Act.
The Court made this observation while hearing an anticipatory bail application: "It is astonishing, rather mind-boggling, that many innocent persons are victims of false implication under the SC/ST (POA) Act."
The risk of unjustly accusing innocent persons to further the complainant's ulterior objectives must be avoided, Justice A. Badharudeen advised.
The Court ruled that when determining whether there is a prima facie case and when weighing a request for pre-arrest bail, courts must separate the wheat from the chaff by considering the origin of the case, the circumstances that existed before the crime was reported, and any enmity between the complainant and the accused.
The SC/ST (POA) Act's strict restrictions were included in the law to prevent atrocities against members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes communities by taking advantage of their inferiority, the Court noted in its analysis of the law.
The SC/ST (POA) Act states that when real complaints are brought by Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe members, those complaints must be handled seriously and the required legal action must be taken to address the complaints' issues.
The prosecution contended that the accused violated Section 3 (1)(s) of the SC/ST (POA Act) when he went to Valappad Service Co-operative Bank to remit the interest on the gold loan he had obtained. The de facto complainant is a member of the Scheduled Castes community. The defendant, in this case, a bank employee, is not a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.
The Court noted that there may be reasons to doubt the case prima facie in situations where there are materials to suggest that the accused and the complainant are at odds, there has been prior litigation between them or their men or representatives, and the allegations in the complaint that constitute an offence or offences under the SC/ST (POA) Act are made in retaliation or as a result of the same.
The Court further observed that in such cases, the court could very well hold that, prima facie, the prosecution's allegations could not be believed to deny anticipatory bail, after leaving the question of the commission of the offense for a thorough and impartial investigation by the Investigating Officer. If the court finds something to see the possibility of false implication in the genesis of the case within the ambit of the aforementioned material.
The Court added that such a course of action is unquestionably required to eliminate the possibility of false implication.
According to the case's facts, the court found that the current offense was done at the spouse of a Bank employee's request during the "internal investigation." In this case, the appellant reported to the Secretary of the Bank for alleged serious sexual harassment after filing multiple complaints with various agencies in the past.
As a result, the accused was given pre-arrest bail with specified restrictions by the court.
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
