Shaikh Shahin Shaikh Sardar vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 10045 Bom

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                         CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.299 OF 2021

Shaikh Shahin Shaikh Sardar,
Age : 45 years, Occu. Housewife,
R/o Patra Colony, Waluj,
Tq. Gangapur, District Aurangabad                            APPELLANT

       VERSUS

1.     The State of Maharashtra,
       through Police Station, Waluj,
       Tq. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad

2.     Shubham Babasaheb Kharat,
       Age : 24 years, Occu. Driver,
       R/o Patra Colony, Waluj,
       Tq. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad                        RESPONDENTS


                                      ----
Mr. Kachru A. Ingale, Advocate for the appellant
Mrs. G.L. Deshpande, A.P.P. for the respondent/State
Mr. Satish P. Dhoble, Advocate for respondent No.2
                                      ----

                                    CORAM :    MANGESH S. PATIL, J.

DATE : 30.07.2021

ORAL JUDGMENT :

Heard.

2. Admit.

3. With the consent of learned Advocates for the parties and

2 CRIAPL299-2021

learned A.P.P., heard finally at the stage of admission.

4. This is an appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes

and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter

referred to as "Atrocities Act"), seeking anticipatory bail in connection with

Crime No. 237 of 2021, registered with Waluj Police Station, District

Aurangabad for the offences punishable under Sections 188, 269, 270, 323,

324, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the

Atrocities Act and Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act.

5. In nutshell, the allegations, as can be appreciated from the FIR

and the police papers, are to the effect that the informant was opposing

installation of electric supply DP in front of the Budhavihar. The accused

persons, including the appellant were harboring grudge against him because

of such opposition for a public cause. They abused his nephew and

threatened him to tell his uncle not to oppose installation of the DP. When

the informant approached the accused persons for questioning them as to

why they had abused his nephew Aditya, all the accused abused and

assaulted him. The abuses were on cast-line and thereby they insulted him

knowing well that he belongs to Scheduled Caste. They also threatened him

to eliminate. When his mother, sister and sister's husband tried to intervene,

even they were assaulted. The matter was reported to police and the offence

was registered.

3 CRIAPL299-2021

6. I have heard the learned Advocate for the appellant, learned

A.P.P. and learned Advocate for respondent No.2.

7. Though the appellant has not been specifically named in the FIR

in the strict sense, her description as mother of Abed can be found in the FIR

and therefore, there cannot be any dispute as regards identification.

8. However, even if the allegations in the FIR and the statements of

the witnesses, particularly Aditya are perused, no specific and exclusive

overtact is attributed to the appellant. Only her presence is being referred

alongwith other accused while the incident was happening. Hurling abuses

much less on caste-lines is not attributed to her.

9. Since the incident apparently had occurred on the spur of

moment, without there being any premeditation in as much as it is only when

the informant had approached the accused persons, about which they may

not have anticipation, it is certainly doubtful if the offences under the

Atrocities Act can be attributed to the appellant.

10. Resultantly, there is every room to believe that case of the

appellant is such that the bar under Sections 18 and 18-A of the Atrocities Act

would not come into play as is interpreted by the Supreme Court in the case

of Prathviraj Chauhan Vs. Union of India and others; (2020) 4 SCC 727.

11. Importantly, the appellant is a woman. She has already been

4 CRIAPL299-2021

granted ad-interim anticipatory bail by this Court by order dated 24.06.2021.

There are no allegations about she having committed breach of the terms and

conditions. Consequently, the appeal deserves to be allowed.

12. The appeal is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set

aside. The ad-interim anticipatory bail granted by the order dated

24.06.2021 stands confirmed with the same terms and conditions.

[MANGESH S. PATIL] JUDGE

npj/CRIAPL299-2021