(v) In the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan (supra) , the Apex Court held that there is no absolute bar to grant of anticipatory bail on account of implication under the provisions of S.C./S.T. Act. It has held that where the complainant fails to make out a prima facie case for applicability of the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the bar created by Sections 18 and 18-A (i) of the Act aforesaid shall not apply. In the present case, the applicant has been implicated for offence u/s 3 (1) (r) of the S.C./S.T. Act which provides that whoever, not being a member of the scheduled caste or scheduled tribe, intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe in any place within public view, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to 5 years and with fine. In the present case, there is clear intention of humiliating the women of scheduled caste since it is clear from the scenes in episode 6 where it has been mentioned that when a man of lower caste dates a woman of higher caste, he is taking revenge for the centuries of atrocities from that one woman is certainly bound to affect the social harmony. Irrespective of caste, boys and girls are marrying and the message given in the movie that if a man of lower caste dates a woman of higher caste, it will amount to revenge for the centuries of atrocities committed against people of lower caste by dating of woman of higher caste is not as per Article 38 of the Constitution of India. The aforesaid scene shows the members of scheduled castes in the manner of intentional insult with the intent to humiliate in a movie meant for public view and therefore, the implication of the applicant for offences u/s 3(1)(r) of the S.C./S.T. Act is made out. Similarly, the utterances of Devakinandan regarding cobbler are objectionable.
