Learned counsel for the appellant therefore has submitted that the accusation of the appellant having abused and thrown out the informant when he went to seek monetary assistance is incorrect. Had it been correct, the appellant would not have reimbursed the expenses incurred on the treatment of the deceased persons. The appellant had only been helpful in asking the informant and his family to sit on the tractor which was being driven by himself. There does not appear to be, it has been argued, any intention of the appellant to cause any harm to the family members of the informant and there also does not appear to be any act of negligence. It is highly surprising that the daughter and the wife of the informant fell down from the tractor while it was being driven by the appellant. It has therefore been urged that except for the offence under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, all the offences under the IPC are bailable. It has therefore been argued that assuming every accusation in the FIR to be true, the mischief of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities), Act