On 2 March 2022, the High court of Gujarat in the case of Chaudhary Pravinbhai Revabhai v. State of Gujarat comprising of Single Judge Bench Justice BN Karia in criminal appeal challenging the quashing of the bail application for offences under Section 323, 332, 504, 506(2) and 114 of IPC and Section 3(2)(5-a) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989.
The Bench observed that
“If we read the entire FIR, no any abusive words were used by the present appellant or any other persons in respect of the caste of the complainant as appellant was not at all aware about the caste of the complainant. It also appears from the record that subsequent report was submitted by the Police Officer of the Vadnagar Police Station to learned Judicial Magistrate at Kheralu to add Section 3(2) (5-a) of the Atrocities Act disclosing that after registering the complaint, as the complainant was member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, this Section 3(2)(5-a) was requested to be added in the FIR. There is no mention in the subsequent report of the Police Officer of Vadnagar Police Station that appellant had a knowledge in respect of the caste of the respondent No.2. Investigating Officer came into knowledge about the caste of the respondent No.2 and therefore, this report appears to be submitted by Investigating Officer.”
The Court relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court titled as Subhash Kashinath Mahajan Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2018(6) SCC 454, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that there is no absolute bar against grant of anticipatory bail in cases under the Atrocities Act if no prima facie case is made out or where on judicial scrutiny the complaint is found to be prima facie mala fide.
Merely any particular word alleging someone caste would not involve the present appellant in the offence. There are no specific allegations made by the complainant against the present appellant in his complaint of committing any offence under the provisions of Sections 3(2)(5)(a), 3(g),3(p),3(r),3(s)(z)(c)& u/s. 8 of the Atrocity Act.”
The Bench allowed the present criminal Appeal
However, without prejudice to the right of the accused to seek stay against an order of remand, if, ultimately, granted and the power of the learned Magistrate to consider such a request in accordance with law. It is clarified that the appellant, even if, remanded to the police custody, upon completion of such period of police remand, shall be set free immediately, subject to other conditions of this anticipatory bail order.”
At the trial, the trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court while enlarging the appellant on bail.”
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
