Indrajit Dilip Patil And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 14885 Bom

SHAMBHAVI                                                        27-APEAL-485-2021.odt
NILESH
SHIVGAN
Digitally signed by
SHAMBHAVI
NILESH SHIVGAN
                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Date: 2021.10.12
15:44:47 +0530
                             CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                              CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.485 OF 2021

                      Mr. Indrajit Dilip Patil
                      & Ors.                                  ... Appellants
                            Vs
                      The State of Maharashtra
                      & Anr.                                ... Respondents
                                                 ...

Mr. M.S.Mohite, Sr. Advocate i/by Ms. Saili Dhuru for the Appellants.

Mr. A.R.Patil , APP for the Respondent-State.

Mr. Arvind D. Aswani appointed advocate for the Responden No.2.

IO Dy. SP Mr. K.M.Pingle, Islampur Division, Sangli present.

CORAM : SANDEEP K. SHINDE J.

DATE : OCTOBER 12, 2021.

P.C. :

In this appeal under Section 14A of the Scheduled

Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

1989 ("Act of 1989" for short), appellants are seeking pre-

Shivgan 1/13 27-APEAL-485-2021.odt

arrest protection in connection with the Crime No.391 of

2021 registered with Islampur Police Station, District: Sangli

for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 188,

297 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the Act of 1989.

Background facts:

2 Appellants are employees of Prakash Hospital

situated at Islampur, District: Sangli. This hospital was

dedicated to Covid facilities having treated more than 1500

covid patients. Appellants are front-line workers, who were

working round the clock, for providing medical treatment to

the Covid patients. The Appellant No.1 was in-charge of

Oxygen management in the hospital; Appellant No.2 was

supervising medical treatment and facilities to covid

patients; Appellant No.3 was clerk working in the

administration of the hospital and Appellant No.4 was social

worker, extending help to the patients and their relatives.

Shivgan                                                        2/13
                                           27-APEAL-485-2021.odt




Prosecution case:



3         Prosecution's case is that, maternal uncle of the

complainant, was suffering from Covid-19 and was shifted

to the Prakash Hospital on 2nd May, 2021 from Manav Covid

Centre at Kolhapur, against advance, deposit of Rs.50,000/-

and Rs.3,00,000/- for booking bed with ventilator facility.

Complainant claims, although he deposited Rs.3,50,000/-,

he did not receive receipt from the hospital administration.

On 18th May, 2021, complainant's uncle succumbed to the

disease in early hours at 3.25 a.m. Complainant was asked

to complete formalities and clear the pending bills in order

to take away the dead-body of his uncle. Complainant

would allege that although he had deposited Rs.3,50,000/-,

the appellants further demanded, amount of Rs.2,17,512/-

and refused to hand over the dead-body unless payment

was made . Thereafter complainant and his brothers

approached Tehsildar of Taluka: Walwa, who, sent his

Shivgan 3/13 27-APEAL-485-2021.odt

persons alongwith the complainant to the hospital. It is

further alleged that heated arguments took place between

the appellants and the complainant, wherein the appellants

abused and humiliated the complainant, knowing well that

the complainant belonged to scheduled caste. It is further

alleged that the appellants declined to give dead-body in

the custody of the complainant unless additional amount

was paid. It is further alleged that upon intervention by

Tehsildar himself, dead-body was handed over in the

evening at 3 p.m. and thereafter last rites were performed

in the crematorium of Islampur. According to the

complainant, undue demand of additional fees by the

appellants and detaining the dead-body without first paying

additional fees/charges, the appellants caused humiliation

to the complainant and his family. According to the

complainant, appellants intentionally insulted them, as they

were, members of scheduled caste. On this set of

allegations, First Information Report was filed on 25 th May,

2021 against the appellants and another person, Mr.

Shivgan 4/13 27-APEAL-485-2021.odt

Vishwajeet Suresh Giri Gosavi, employee of the hospital.

4 Apprehending the arrest, the appellants sought

pre-arrest bail, however, the Special Judge (Atrocity Act)

declined to grant relief. Whereafter they have approached

this Court.

5 On 4th June, 2021, this Court by reasoned order,

and by relying on the judgment of the Apex Court

Prathaviraj Chauhan v. Union of India, AIR 2020 SC

2036 granted interim protection to the appellants and

directed notice to the complainant.

6 Heard Mr. Mohite, learned Senior Counsel for the

appellants, Mr. A.D.Aswani for the complainant and Mr.

A.R.Patil, the learned prosecutor for the State.

7         Mr. Mohite, the learned Senior Counsel for the

appellants    vehemently    submitted    that      the   primary


Shivgan                                                      5/13
                                               27-APEAL-485-2021.odt

evaluation of the allegations do not constitute an offence

under the Act of 1989. Mr. Mohite submitted that the

hospital administration was unaware about the patient

belonging to scheduled caste. It is submitted that only

when differences arose in respect of the cost of the

treatment, complainant disclosed that he belongs to

scheduled caste. It is submitted, essentially the dispute that

arose between the complainant and the hospital

administration, was concerning the hospital bill and for the

reason that family members were insisting to take the

dead-body to Kolhapur against the protocol and the SOP

issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. Mr.

Mohite relied on Covid-19 guide-lines on dead-body

management. Mr. Mohite, submitted that the complaint

itself shows that the appellants were unaware and/or had

knowledge that the complainant was belonging to

scheduled caste. Mr. Mohite submitted that even assuming

but without admitting that the dead-body was detained by

the hospital administration, the material on record does not

Shivgan 6/13 27-APEAL-485-2021.odt

lead to belief, it was, detained only because deceased

belonged to scheduled caste. It is argued that neither the

complaint nor the attendant circumstances imply that the

dead-body of the complainant was intentionally detained to

cause humiliation to the complainant and his family

members only because they belonged to the scheduled

caste. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the

Apex Court in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand &

Anr. (2020) 10 SCC 710. In the cited judgment, the First

Information Report was lodged for the offences punishable

under Sections 452, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code,

1860 and Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(e) of the Act of 1989.

Therein, there was dispute relating to the property pending

before the Civil Court. The appellants therein were not

permitting the respondents to cultivate the land. In the

context of these facts, in paragraph 16, it was observed

that 'since the matter is regarding possession of the

property pending before the Civil Court, any dispute arising

on account of possession of the said property would not

Shivgan 7/13 27-APEAL-485-2021.odt

disclose offence under the Act unless the victim is abused,

intimidated or harassed only for the reason that she

belongs to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe'. Relying on

these observations, Mr. Mohite submitted that dispute and

differences arose between the hospital administration and

the complainant on alleged over charging of hospital bill

and, therefore, the alleged abuses or intimidation was not

only for the reason that the complainant belonged to

scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. It is, therefore, argued

allegations do not disclose commission of offence under

Section 3(1)(r) or 3(1)(s) of the Act of 1989. On these

grounds, pre-arrest protection is sought.

8 Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant

and the learned Prosecutor for the State, argued that

complainant's uncle expired at 3 a.m. in the morning and

the dead-body was handed over nearly after ten hours, that

too, after intervention of the revenue officer. It is argued

that detaining the body for not settling undue, hospital bill,

Shivgan 8/13 27-APEAL-485-2021.odt

itself was, insult and intimidation to the complainant and

his helpless family members, who were waiting nearly for

ten hours to receive dead-body. It is argued, hospital

administration, although had received Rs.3,50,000/- in

advance, demand of additional amount of Rs.2,17,512/-

without furnishing details/particulars, had added to the

insult of the complainant and his relatives. The learned

counsel for the complainant would submit that detaining

dead-body itself caused humiliation and insult not only to

the complainant but also to the deceased. He would rely on

the judgment of this Court in the case of Pradeep Gandhy

& Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. in LD-VC- 46 of

2020 wherein the Division Bench of this Court in paragraph

38 has observed that right to dignity and fair treatment

under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is not only

available to a living man but also to his body after his

death. Right to a decent burial, commensurate with the

dignity of the individual is recognised as a facet of the right

to life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Shivgan 9/13 27-APEAL-485-2021.odt

It is argued, the appellants were aware, that deceased and

relatives, were belonging to 'Scheduled Caste'. Thus,

argued, plain reading of First Information Report, in no

uncertain terms, discloses commission of offence under the

Act of 1989 and Section 18 of the Act bars, remedy, of pre-

arrest protection.

9 In the case in hand, even assuming that the

hospital administration had detained the body for

unreasonable period, which caused insult and the

humiliation to the complainant and his family members, the

fact remains that detention of the body itself would not

constitute offence under the Act of 1989 unless it is shown

or borne out from the First Information Report that firstly,

the appellants knew that the complainant belonged to

scheduled caste and secondly, body was detained only

because deceased belonged to scheduled caste.

Apparently, these two important ingredients of offence

alleged were are absent in the complaint or in the material

Shivgan

27-APEAL-485-2021.odt

produced by the prosecution for my perusal. The offence

under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act of 1989 would signify that,

all insults and intimidations to a person will not be an

offence under the Act, unless such insult or intimidation is

on account or referable to caste or tribe of a person, who

was insulted. In the case in hand, the dispute arose

between the hospital administration and the complainant

over the hospital bill. From the material, it cannot be

inferred that dead-body was detained by the hospital

administration only because complainant belonged to

scheduled caste. Besides, First Information Report, does not

imply that appellants or hospital administration knew, that

deceased was belonging to 'Scheduled Caste'.

Undoubtedly, facts of the case reveal that dead-body was

handed over to the relatives of the deceased only after

intervention of the revenue officer and from the

circumstances, it can be reasonably inferred that body was

not handed owing to the fact that, the hospital bill was not

settled. Although the circumstances caused humiliation to

Shivgan

27-APEAL-485-2021.odt

the complainant and his family members but by that itself

would not constitute an offence either under clause (r) or

(s) of the Act of 1989.

10 In consideration of the facts, and for the reason

stated above, in my view, complaint does not disclose

commission of offence under the Act of 1989.

Consequently, appellants are granted pre-arrest bail.

Hence, the following order:

ORDER

(i) In the event of arrest of the appellants in Crime

No.391 of 2021 registered with Islampur Police Station,

District: Sangli, they shall be released on executing PR

bond for the sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one or more

sureties in like sum.

(ii) The appellants shall not tamper with the

evidence or attempt to influence or contact the

complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the

Shivgan

27-APEAL-485-2021.odt

case

11 The appeal is accordingly allowed and disposed

of.

12 It is made clear that observations made here-in-

above be construed as expression of opinion for the

purpose of bail only and the same shall not in any way

influence the trial in other proceedings.

(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.)

Shivgan