Ashok Rajatam Gote vs State Of Mah., Thr. P.S.O. P.S. ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 488 Bom

 Judgment                                    1                   13JUDGMENTAPL192.20.odt




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                            NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                               CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 192/2020


          Ashok Rajatam Gote,
          Aged about 50 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
          R/o. Adoli, Tah. & Dist. Washim,


                                                                        .... APPELLANT


                                       // VERSUS //


      1. State of Maharashtra,
         through Police Station Officer,
         Police Station, Washim Rural,
         Washim.

      2. Chandrakala Samsadhan Sawant,
         R/o. Adoli, Tah. & Dist. Washim.


                                                                    .... RESPONDENTS


 ___________________________________________________________________
 Shri M. N. Ali, Advocate for appellant.
 Ms. H. N. Jaipurkar, Addl. Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1.
 ___________________________________________________________________

                                        CORAM : VINAY JOSHI, J.

                                        DATED :       09.01.2021

 JUDGMENT

Heard.

2. Admit.

Judgment 2 13JUDGMENTAPL192.20.odt

3. The appellant is challenging the order of rejection of pre-

arrest bail in MCA No. 46/2020. The learned counsel for the appellant

would submit that there was land dispute going on in Civil Court. The

parties are in rival terms hence to deter the appellant false case has

been filed. The informant and her family were habituated in filing

false complaints under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (short 'SC and ST

Act'). In support of said contention, he has produced the copy of

judgment passed in atrocities case No. 19/2012 and copy of First

Information Report dated 29.01.2019 lodged by the son of the

informant.

4. The State resisted the appeal by filing reply-affidavit. The

State has contended that First Information Report discloses abuses in

the name of caste which makes out the offence under the provisions of

SC and ST Act. I have gone through the First Information report. It is

alleged that at the instance of land dispute, there was quarrel in which

the appellant allegedly abused informant in the name of caste. In

order to constitute the offence under the SC and ST Act, there must be

adequate mens-rea and the occurrence must be within public view.

 Those aspects require serious consideration.                    Already, interim





  Judgment                                 3                13JUDGMENTAPL192.20.odt

protection has been granted to the appellant vide order dated

23.04.2020 which is prevailing till date. It is not alleged that the

appellant has either misused liberty or pressurized the prosecution

witnesses. In the situation, having regard to the nature of allegations,

the appellant has made out a case for grant of pre-arrest protection.

5. In view of above, appeal stands allowed. Impugned order

dated 28.02.2020 is hereby quashed and set aside. The interim order

dated 23.04.2020 is hereby made absolute on the same terms and

conditions with rider to follow the conditions of attendance till filing of

charge-sheet. The appellant shall not commit similar type of crime,

failing which the State can move for cancellation of pre-arrest

protection.

6. Appeal stands disposed in above terms.

JUDGE .

Gohane