Bombay High Court
Sunil Prataprao Thakre vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 3 August, 2021
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 260 OF 2021
Sunil Prataprao Thakre,
Age : 50 years, Occu. Business,
R/o Row House No.83, Gat No.74,
Kasliwal Marwal West,
Beed bypass Road, Satara Parisar, APPELLANT
Aurangabad (Orig. Accused No.1)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. Gaurabai Babulal Jatwe,
Age : 60 years, Occu. Social Worker,
R/o Lions Club Colony, Galli No.6, RESPONDENTS
Mukundwadi, Aurangabad (Respdt. No.2 - Orig.
Informant)
AND
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 218 OF 2021
Kisan s/o Murlidhar Bhade,
Age : 70 years, Occu. Business,
R/o Plot No.9, Gut No. 88,
Shri Samarth Gajanan Housing Society,
Near High Court Colony, Satara Parisar,
Aurangabad, District Aurangabad
Aurangabad APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station, Jinsi,
Aurangabad
2. Sau. Gaurabai w/o Babulal Jatve,
Age : 60 years, Occu. Social Work,
R/o Lions Club Colony, Lane No.6, RESPONDENTS
Mukundwadi, Aurangabad
::: Uploaded on - 03/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 04/08/2021 05:31:46 :::
2 CRIAPL260-218-2021
----
Mr. Joydeep Chatterji, Advocate for the appellant in
Criminal Appeal No.260/2021
Mr. Mangesh R. Jadhav, Advocate for the appellant in
Criminal Appeal No.218/2021
Mr. R.B. Bagul, A.P.P. for the respondent/State
Mr. V.B. Patil, Advocate for respondent No.2 in both appeals
----
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL, J.
DATE : 03.08.2021
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Heard.
2. Admit.
3. With the consent of learned Advocates for the parties and the
learned A.P.P., heard finally at the stage of admission.
4. These are the appeals under Section 14-A of the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
("Atrocities Act", for short), being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the rejection
of their applications under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.47 of 2021, registered
with Jinsi Police Station, District Aurangabad on 24.02.2021 for the offence
punishable under Section 354 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code
and Sections 3(1)(w) and 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act.
3 CRIAPL260-218-2021
5. In nutshell, the allegations, as can be made out from the papers,
are to the effect that the appellants as also the informant were present at a
meeting of a Cooperative Bank wherein during the meeting, appellant Sunil
is alleged to have uttered insulting words on caste-lines in order to prevent
her from participating in the meeting and speaking out. It is further alleged
that after the meeting was over when she was proceeding along the road,
both the appellants accosted her and insulted her by hurling abuses on caste-
lines and even molested her. She immediately approached the police with a
complaint but no cognizance was taken. She had to pursue the matter with
the senior police officers but invain. Finally, she filed Criminal Application
and the learned Special Judge was pleased to direct an investigation under
Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that is how the offence
was registered.
6. The learned Advocates for the appellants would vehemently
submit that there is enormous and unexplained delay in initiating the
criminal proceeding. The incident is alleged to have taken place in the
month of November 2019 and even the private complaint was filed in the
month of January 2021, it is thereafter that the offence was registered
pursuant to a direction under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. Thus, according to them, there is every room to believe that the
appellants are being falsely implicated with an ulterior motive since they
were opposing one of the Directors of the Bank and respondent No.2 -
4 CRIAPL260-218-2021
informant happens to be a member of his fraction.
7. The learned Advocates would then submit that there is an
element of concoction as well inasmuch as in the initial grievances made by
respondent No.2 in writing, she tried to attribute the incident only to
appellant Sunil and there was no whisper as far as the other appellant Kisan
is concerned. Even the allegations in the initial complaint are vague and
omnibus. No specific allegations have been attributed. Though the word is
used to describe the molestation in vernacular, the details of which are
wanting. It is, therefore, highly doubtful if the offences under the provisions
of the Atrocities Act can be made out.
8. The learned Advocates would then submit that there is no
material to attribute knowledge on the part of the appellants about the caste
of respondent No.2. Both the appellants have been protected by way of ad-
interim relief. There are no allegations about there being any breach of the
terms and conditions. Since the offences under the provisions of the
Atrocities Act cannot be made out, the bar under Sections 18 and 18-A of the
Act would not be applicable as laid down in the case of Prathviraj Chauhan
Vs. Union of India and others; (2020)4 SCC 727 . The appellants have
already been protected by ad-interim anticipatory bail. They are ready to
cooperate the Investigating Officer even hereafter. The learned Special Judge
has erred in appreciating the aforementioned facts and circumstances and
illegally refused to grant anticipatory bail to the appellants.
5 CRIAPL260-218-2021
9. The learned A.P.P. and the learned Advocate for respondent No.2
would oppose the appeals. They would submit that at this juncture, there is
enough material to point out that since inception, respondent No.2 was
trying to put up her grievance in writing. Though there is delay in setting the
criminal law in motion, there is material to reveal that she was taking steps
to initiate the prosecution. She deserves to be extended an opportunity to
explain away the delay. Since there are prima facie allegations and material
sufficient to make out the necessary ingredients for the offences under the
Atrocities Act, in view of the bar under Section 18 and 18-A of that Act, as
laid down in the case of Prathviraj Chauhan (supra), the appellants are not
entitled to claim anticipatory bail. The learned Special Judge has rightly
invokved the provisions while refusing to grant anticipatory bail to the
appellants.
10. I have carefully gone through the papers of investigation. Since
it is a matter of grant of anticipatory bail in a proceeding under the
provisions of the Atrocities Act, the enquiry needs to be restricted in
ascertaining if prima facie the ingredients for constituting the offences under
the Atrocities Act are made out as laid down in the case of Prathviraj
Chauhan (supra). It is only if a case can be made out prima facie that the bar
under Sections 18 and 18-A of the Atrocities can be made applicable and not
otherwise.
6 CRIAPL260-218-2021
11. Bearing in mind this proposition, if one examines the papers, it is
quite apparent that on the very date of the incident, respondent No.2 had
tried to set the criminal law in motion by addressing a letter to the concerned
police. True it is that it is after a long sabbatical that she approached the
Special Court by filing an application soliciting a direction under Section
156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Though it would be for the
prosecution to explain this delay, at this juncture, one can simply point out
that on the very date of the application i.e. 29.11.2019, she had specifically
made allegations atleast against appellant Sunil not only in respect of hurling
abuses on caste-line but also regarding molestation. It is in view of such
state-of-affairs, in my considered view, this is not a stage where any scrutiny
can be undertaken objectively to describe if the delay can be explained away.
12. The fact remains that since inception, respondent No.2 has been
putting up her grievance against appellant Sunil for having insulted her by
hurling abuses on caste-lines, which is sufficient to make out the ingredients
for constituting the offences as against him. Therefore, no fault can be found
with the conclusion drawn by the learned Special Judge that the bar under
Sections 18 and 18-A of the Atrocities Act would be applicable as against
appellant Sunil.
13. However, so far as the other appellant - Kisan is concerned, not
even a cursory reference to his presence much less taking part in the episode
7 CRIAPL260-218-2021
in which appellant Sunil is alleged to have hurled abuses on caste-line at
respondent No.2 and molested her can be found in the initial complaint
dated 29.11.2019. For that matter, even in the second attempt by respondent
No.2, to file a similar complaint with the letter dated 28.12.2020, she has not
referred to much less attributed any role to appellant Kisan. Not only this,
but in the private complaint, she has not made any attempt to attribute the
role against appellant Kisan and only appellant Sunil has been targetted.
Considering such state-of-affairs, it cannot be said that the ingredients for
constituting the offences under the Atrocities Act can be made out against
appellant Kisan. The learned Special Judge seems to have overlooked all
these aspects and readily refused to grant anticipatory bail to him by invoking
the provisions under Sections 18 and 18-A of the Atrocities Act.
14. In the result, Criminal Appeal No.260 of 2021 fails and is
dismissed. The ad-interim anticipatory bail granted to appellant Sunil
Prataprao Thakre by order dated 25.05.2021 is cancelled.
15. Criminal Appeal No.218 of 2021 is allowed. The impugned
order to the extent of appellant Kisan Murlidhar Bhade is quashed and set
aside. The ad-interim anticipatory bail granted to him by order dated
06.05.2021 stands confirmed with the same terms and conditions.
[MANGESH S. PATIL]
JUDGE
npj/CRIAPL260-218-2021
8 CRIAPL260-218-2021
