Bombay High Court
Lata Kishor Sarvayya vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ... on 21 October, 2021
Bench: V. G. Joshi
Judgment apeal378.21
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 378/2021.
Lata Kishor Sarvayya,
Age 45 years, Occupation Household,
resident of Near Shiv Mandir, Vilas
Nagar, Amravati, Tq. and District
Amravati. ... APPELLANT.
VERSUS
1.State of Maharashtra,
through its Police Station Officer,
Police Station Gadge Nagar,
Amravati, Tq. and District Amravati.
2.Lalita Prakash Bhagat,
Age 45 years, Occupation - Household,
resident of Near Statue of Dr.Babasaheb
Ambedkar, Vikas Nagar, Amravati.
Tq. and District Amravati. ... RESPONDENTS.
---------------------------------
Mr.S.B. Gadhia, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr. M.J. Khan, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1 State.
Shri V.P. Mohod, Advocate (appointed) for Respondent No.2.
----------------------------------
CORAM : VINAY JOSHI, J.
DATE : OCTOBER 21, 2021.
::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2021 23:18:53 :::
Judgment apeal378.21
2
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Heard.
Admit. By consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the
appeal is taken up for final hearing.
2. This is an appeal filed by the appellant under Section 14-
A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Amendment Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the
Atrocities Act" for short), challenging the order dated 23.11.2020 of
rejection of pre-arrest bail passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Amravati in Criminal Bail Application No.1417/2020.
3. Apprehending to be arrested in Crime No.940/2020
registered with respondent no.1 - Gadge Nagar Police Station,
Amravati for the offence punishable under Sections 506 of the
Indian Penal Code, Sections 3[1][c], 3[1][r], 3[1][s] and 3[1][w]
[ii] of the Atrocities Act, the appellant initially approached to the
trial Court for grant of pre-arrest protection, however, she failed,
hence, in this appeal she urged to set aside the impugned order and
to grant pre-arrest protection in terms of Section 438 of the Code of
::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2021 23:18:53 :::
Judgment apeal378.21
3
Criminal Procedure.
4. At the instance of a report dated 21.10.2020, lodged by
the informant - lady, the aforesaid crime came to be registered. The
grievance is in two parts. The informant has stated that though she
is residing with her husband at Pusad, however, they own a house
property at Amravati. The informant learnt that the appellant who
is neighbouring resident had caused damage to her property, she
rushed to Amravati on 04.10.2020. She asked the appellant and
other co-accused the reason for causing damage, to which the co-
accused abused her in the name of caste. So far as the second
incident is concerned, the informant had stated that on 21.10.2020,
once again she came to Amravati. On that day in the morning the
appellant has thrown waste water on her person and abused her in
filthy language. Moreover, the appellant lady also gave abuses in
the name of her case, hence, the report.
5. The learned Counsel for the appellant by denying the
occurrence contended that the essential ingredients to constitute an
offence punishable under the Atrocities Act are not made out. It is
submitted that the report is silent about the caste of the appellant,
::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2021 23:18:53 :::
Judgment apeal378.21
4
which was essential to constitute the offence. He would submit that
there is no reference in the report that the occurrence took place
within the public view. Moreover, it is contended that the provisions
of Section 3[1][w][ii] of the Atrocities Act would not attract since
the appellant is a lady.
6. Perusal of entire report indicates that though the
informant has stated that she belongs to Scheduled Caste, however,
the report is totally silent on the aspect that the appellant does not
belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The opening words
of Section 3 of the Atrocities Act itself conveys that the offence
would be against a person who is not a member of Scheduled Caste
or Scheduled Tribe. Moreover, the report no where states about
presence of any member of public at the place of occurrence. This
Court in the reported case of Pradnya Pradeep Kenkar .vrs. State of
Maharashtra - 2005 [3] Mh.L.J.368, took a view that in order to
attract the provisions of Section 3[1][r] and [s] of the Atrocities Act,
both the ingredients namely the occurrence must be at place
accessible to public and in presence of public, has to be complied.
Needless to say that the offence punishable under Section 3[1][w]
::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2021 23:18:53 :::
Judgment apeal378.21
5
[ii] of the Atrocities Act may not attract, since the words used by the
appellant lady cannot be termed as of sexual nature against the
informant.
7. Besides that it is alleged that the appellant has thrown
waste water on the person of the informant, attracting the provisions
of Section 3[1][c] of the Atrocities Act. In this regard, it is
submitted that the dispute was at the instance of damaging common
wall in between the two houses. There was no intention of
appellant to insult or annoy the informant by throwing such water.
Undeniably, the incident is an outcome of a dispute in between two
neighbours, therefore, it is a matter of trial, whether the appellant
has thrown waste water on the person of the informant i.e. a
member of Scheduled Caste with an intent to insult or annoy her.
8. In view of above circumstances, there is substance in the
contention that prima facie the ingredients to constitute an offence
punishable under the Atrocities Act may not attract. So far as the
provisions under the Indian Penal Code are concerned, it relates to
criminal intimidation only. No specific ground is made out by the
prosecution to have custodial interrogation. Having regard to the
::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2021 23:18:53 :::
Judgment apeal378.21
6
peculiar facts of this case, the appellant can be protected by directing
her to join the course of investigation. In view of that, the impugned
order calls for interference, hence, the following order.
ORDER
(i) Criminal Appeal is allowed.
(ii) The judgment and order dated 23.11.2020 passed by
the Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in Criminal
Bail Application No.1417/2020 is hereby quashed and
set aside.
(iii) In the event of arrest of the appellant/accused - Lata
Kishor Sarvayya in connection with Crime
No.940/2020 registered with respondent no.1 -
Gadge Nagar Police Station, Amravati for the offence
punishable under Sections 506 of the Indian Penal
Code, Sections 3[1][c], 3[1][r], 3[1][s] and 3[1][w]
[ii] of the the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 1989, she
be released on bail on her furnishing P.R. Bond in the
sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like
amount.
(iv) The appellant/accused to attend the concerned police
station on every Sunday in between 11 a.m. to 2 p.m.
till the filing of charge sheet or 60 days, which ever is
earlier.
(v) The appellant/accused shall not tamper with the
prosecution evidence in any manner.
(vi) Fees for the appointed counsel for respondent no.2 be
paid as per Rules.
JUDGE
Rgd.
