Bombay High Court
Leela Vijay Mate vs The State Of Mah. Thr. Pso, Ps Mehkar Tah. ... on 2 May, 2024
2024:BHC-NAG:5308
940.apeal.131.2024.judgment.odt
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.131 OF 2024
Leela Vijay Mate,
Aged about 32 Years,
Occupation - Household,
R/o Borkhedi, Tahsil Lonar,
District - Buldhana. .... APPELLANT
// VERSUS //
1] State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Mehkar,
Tahsil Mehkar, District Buldhana.
2] Varsha Gautam Jadhav,
Aged ab out 35 Years,
Occupation - Household,
R/o Borkhedi, Tahsil Lonar,
District - Buldhana. .... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------
Mr. A. S. Dhore, Advocate for appellant.
Ms. Swati Kolhe, APP for respondent No.1/State.
Mr. A. V. Wankhede, Advocate for respondent No.2.
-------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
DATED : 02.05.2024
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard.
2. Admit.
3. By preferring this appeal, the appellant has
challenged the order dated 15.02.2024 passed by the learned
Special Judge Mehkar, District Buldhana, by which the
anticipatory bail application of the present appellant is rejected.
940.apeal.131.2024.judgment.odt
4. The accusation against the present appellant is on the
basis of report lodged by the informant Varsha Gautam Jadhav
alleging that there is a previous enmity between her family and
the family of the present appellant. It is alleged that present
appellant asked her to pay Rs.5,000/- and accordingly, she has
given Rs.5,000/-, but as agreed the appellant has not provided
her loan from Bachat Gat. On 27.01.2024 at about 8.00 p.m.
she had been to the house of the present appellant and
demanded her amount, at that time present appellant hold her
hairs and assaulted her, at the relevant time the brother of the
present appellant came there, he has also assaulted her and
present appellant abused the informant by saying " fg egkjhu [kqi
ektyh vkgs] fgpk vkrk ekt ftjok ". On the basis of the said report,
police have registered the crime against the present appellant.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that as
far as the recitals of the FIR are concerned, except the reference
of the caste, there is no other allegation against the present
appellant to show that she has committed the offence under the
provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act. He submitted that now other
co-accused are already released on bail. The investigation is
already practically completed, further investigation is not
required by taking the present appellant into the custody and
940.apeal.131.2024.judgment.odt
nothing is to be recovered from her. He submitted that as far as
bar under Section 18 of the Act of 1989 is concerned, which is
not attracted as no prima facie case is made out against the
present appellant.
6. Learned APP strongly opposed the said appeal on the
ground that considering the recitals of the FIR wherein the
informant specifically alleged that the appellant was abused on
her caste and therefore, the application deserves to be rejected.
7. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 also
endorsed the same contention and submitted the additional
affidavits of two witnesses to show that the informant was
abused by the present appellant on her caste.
8. After hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant,
learned APP for the State and learned Counsel for the
respondent No.2, perused the investigation papers. From the
recitals of the FIR, it reveals that there was a previous dispute
between the informant and present appellant as present
appellant has obtained the amount of Rs.5,000/- on the pretext
of providing her Bachat Gat loan. After accepting the amount,
she has not repaid the said amount and therefore, informant had
been to her house to receive the said amount back and the
quarrel took place. As per the allegation of the informant, the
present appellant has referred her caste and abused her and
940.apeal.131.2024.judgment.odt
therefore, the provisions of Atrocities Act are made applicable. It
is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that mere
reference of the caste is not sufficient to attract the provisions
and therefore, the bar under Section 18 of the Act of 1989 is not
attracted.
9. Per contra, learned APP submitted that considering
the specific allegation against the present appellant that she
abused the informant on her caste, the bar under Section 18 of
the Act of 1989 is attracted and therefore, the application for
anticipatory bail is not maintainable. Learned APP further
submitted that learned trial Court has rightly rejected the
application, in view of that, the present appeal is devoid of
merits and liable to be dismissed. Learned Counsel for the
respondent No.2 endorsed the same contention.
10. On perusal of the entire statements on record, it
reveals that while abusing the informant her caste was referred
by the present appellant. In Virendra Singh Vs. State of
Rajasthan reported in 2000 CRI.L.J. 2899 wherein the Full
Bench of the Rajasthan High Court held that if a person is even
alleged of accusation of committing an offence under the Act of
1989 the intention of Section 18 is clearly to debar him from
seeking the remedy of anticipatory bail and it is only in the
circumstances where there is absolutely no material to infer as
940.apeal.131.2024.judgment.odt
to why Section 3 has been applied to implicate a person for an
offence under the Act of 1989 the Courts would be justified in a
very limited sphere to examine whether the application can be
rejected on the ground of its maintainability. What is intended to
be emphasized is that while dealing with an application for
anticipatory bail, the Courts would be justified in merely
examining as to whether there is at all an accusation against a
person for registering a case under Section 3 of the Act of 1989
and once the ingredients of the offence are available in the FIR
or the complaint, the Courts would not be justified in entering
into a further inquiry by summoning the case diary or any other
material as to whether the allegations are true or false or
whether there is any preponderance of probability of commission
of such an offence. Such an exercise is intended to put a
complete bar against entertainment of application of anticipatory
bail which is unambiguously laid down under Section 18 which is
apparent from the perusal of the Section itself and thus, the
Court at the most would be required to evaluate the FIR itself
with a view to find out if the facts emerging there from taken at
their face value disclosed the existence of the ingredients
constituting the alleged offence.
11. The same view is taken by this Court also in
Ratnakala Martandrao Mohite Vs. The State of
940.apeal.131.2024.judgment.odt
Maharashtra and anr. reported in 2020 ALL MR (Cri) 334
and Jagdish Sajjankumar Banka Vs. The State of
Maharashtra and anr. reported 2023 All MR (Cri.) 2911.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vilas Pandurang Pawar
and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. reported in 2012
ALL MR (Cri.) 3743 (S.C.) wherein also it is held that no Court
shall entertain application for anticipatory bail in the offence
registered under the provisions of the Act of 1989, unless it
prima facie finds that such an offence is made out.
12. In the light of the above observations, I have given
the considerations to the rival submissions of both the parties
and also perused the various decisions of this Court as well as
the decision of the Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court.
13. After perusal of the FIR, the FIR was lodged against
the present appellant prima facie it reveals that the allegation
against the present appellant is that she pulled her hair and
assaulted the informant. The basic ingredient of Sections 3(1)(r)
(s) are that there must be "intentional insult" with intent to
humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or Schedule Tribe in
any place within public view. Mere reference of the caste is not
sufficient to amount insult or to abuse him. It cannot be said
that said reference is with intent to humiliate such person.
940.apeal.131.2024.judgment.odt
14. The allegation against the present appellant is that
she called the informant by her caste. Thus, in view of the
above observations, as mere reference of the caste is there
therefore, bar under Section 18 of the Act of 1989 will not
attract, in view of that, the appeal deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass following order.
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed.
(ii) The appellant Leela Vijay Mate shall be
released on bail on executing PR bond in the sum
of Rs.25,000/- with one solvent surety in the like
amount, in connection with Crime No.54/2024
registered with Police Station Mehkar, District
Buldhana for the offences punishable under
Sections 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s),
3(1)(u) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and
the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989.
(iii) The order dated 15.02.2024 passed by the
learned Special Judge, Mehkar, District Buldhana
rejecting the Bail Application No.22/2024 is hereby
quashed and set aside.
(iv) The appellant shall not induce, threat or
promise any witnesses who are acquainted with
the facts of the case.
15. The appeal is disposed of.
(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)
Sarkate.
Signed by: Mr. A.R. Sarkate
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 06/05/2024 10:52:17
