Bombay High Court

Jagannath S/O Sadashiv Lanjulkar And ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr Pso. ... on 3 April, 2025

2025:BHC-NAG:3686


               J.942.cri.appeal.113.25.odt                                              1/7


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

                               CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.113 OF 2025
               1.     Jagannath s/o Sadashiv Lanjulkar,
                      Age - 54 years, Occ : Agriculturist,
                      R/o Alasana, Tq. Shegaon, Dist. Buldana

               2.     Yuvraj @ Abhijeet s/o Mugutrao Bele,
                      Age 22 years, Occ: Labour,
                      R/o Dasra Nagar, Shegaon,
                      Tq. Shegaon, Dist. Buldana.

               3.     Sagar s/o Baliram Dambare,
                      Age 28 years, Occ: Labour,
                      R/o Shegaon, Dist. Buldana.

               4.     Gaurav s/o Jagannath Lanjurkar,
                      Aged about 23 years, Occ: Agriculturist,
                      R/o Alasana, Tq. Shegaon,
                      Dist. Buldana.
                                                                              ...APPELLANTS
                                                   VERSUS

               1.     The State of Maharashtra,
                      through Police Station Officer,
                      Police Station Shegaon (Rural),
                      Tq. Shegaon, Dist. Buldana.

               2.     Shivaji s/o Dinkar Tandale,
                      Age 30 years, Occ: Labour,
                      R/o Alasana, Tq. Shegaon,
                      Dist. Buldana
                                                                           ...RESPONDENTS
               _______________________________________________________
                      Mr. A.J. Thakkar, Advocate for the appellants.
                      Ms Swati Kolhe, A.P.P. for the State.
                      Ms Kirti Deshpande, Advocate (appointed) for respondent No.2.
               _______________________________________________________
 J.942.cri.appeal.113.25.odt                                               2/7


                              CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
                              DATED   : APRIL 3, 2025.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

ADMIT. Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel

for the parties.

2. By this appeal, the appellants have challenged the order

passed by the learned Special Judge under the Scheduled Castes and the

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act dated 14.02.2025 passed

in Anticipatory Bail Application No.45/2025 by which the prayer of the

present appellants for grant of anticipatory bail is rejected.

3. The appellants have preferred the anticipatory bail

application in connection Crime No.167/2024 registered initially under

Sections 324, 323, 504, 506, 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian

Penal Code and under Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v) and (va) of the

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act

(for short 'the Act of 1989'). Initially, the FIR was registered against the

present appellants on the basis of report lodged by the informant Shivaji

Dinkar Tandle, who belongs to the Chambhar Community. It is alleged

that on 11.06.2024 there was hot exchange of words between him and

one Jagannath Lanjulkar and Gaurav Lanjulkar. During the exchange of

words, he was assaulted by slaps and fist blows and also threatened. On J.942.cri.appeal.113.25.odt 3/7

the basis of the said report, police have registered the crime against

them. Subsequently Section 326 of IPC is added. As far as present

applicants are concerned initially they were arrested and they were

released on bail. After adding of Section 326 of the IPC they are

apprehending arrest and they approached to the Special Court for grant

of anticipatory bail. Section 326 of IPC is added after recording the

statement of the informant subsequently as well as the provisions of the

Atrocities Act are made applicable, and therefore, they approached to

the Sessions Court but the Special Court rejected the bail application in

view of bar under Section 18 of the Act of 1989, hence this appeal.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that from the

entire recitals of the FIR or the subsequent report filed by the State, it

nowhere reveals that knowingly only because the informant belongs to

the Scheduled Caste, he is assaulted. He submitted that as far as the

application of the provisions of the Atrocities Act itself is doubtful, and

therefore, bar under Section 18 of the Act of 1989 will not attract. He

submitted that initially the appellants were arrested and they were

released on bail. Merely because the provisions of the Atrocities Act are

made applicable, their bail cannot be cancelled without following the

due procedure and they cannot be arrested. Considering that they be

protected by granting anticipatory bail.

J.942.cri.appeal.113.25.odt 4/7

5. Learned APP and learned Counsel for respondent No.2

strongly opposed the same and submitted that in view of the bar under

Section 18 of the Act of 1989, the application deserves to be rejected.

Moreover, the injuries sustained by the injured shows that there was

apprehension of death to him, and therefore, considering the nature of

injuries, Section 326 of the IPC is added.

6. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the recitals of the

FIR and the investigation papers it reveals that as far as the abuses are

concerned, there is no single whisper by the informant that he was

abused on his caste initially. The recitals of the FIR as to the assault on

his name is concerned, it is also silent as to the fact that he is assaulted

merely because he belongs to the Scheduled Caste. The basic ingredients

for constituting an offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act of 1989 that

the person should belongs to the Scheduled Caste and accused person

must not be a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, accused

must intentionally insult or intimidates member of a Scheduled Caste or

a Scheduled Tribe. Accused must do with the intent to humiliate such

person an accused must do so at any place within public view. All insults

or intimidations to a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe

will not amount to an offence under the Act, 1989 unless such insult or

intimidation is on the ground that the victim belongs to the Scheduled J.942.cri.appeal.113.25.odt 5/7

Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Whether it attracts the provisions of the

Atrocities Act or not, is a matter to consider.

7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shajan Skaria Vs. The

State Of Kerala & anr. in Criminal Appeal No.2622 of 2024 (arising out

of SLP (CRL.) No.8081 of 2023) decided on 23.08.2024 wherein it is

held that all insults or intimidations to a member of the Scheduled Caste

or Scheduled Tribe will not amount to an offence under the Act, 1989

unless such insult or intimidation is on the ground that the victim

belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The various decisions

which are considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court and it is further held

that the purport of the Act, 1989 and held that it is not the purport of

the Act, 1989 that every act of intentional insult or intimidation meted

by a person who is not a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled

Tribe to a person who belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe

would attract Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 merely because it is

committed against a person who happens to be a member of a

Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. On the contrary, Section 3(1)(r) of

the Act, 1989 is attracted where the reason for the intentional insult or

intimidation is that the person who is subjected to it belongs to a

Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.

J.942.cri.appeal.113.25.odt 6/7

8. Considering the allegations as it is which are levelled

against the present appellants, the bar under Section 18 of the Act of

1989 will not attract, and therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed.

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order:

              (i)     The appeal is allowed.


              (ii)    The order dated 14.02.2025 passed by the Additional

              Sessions        Judge,   Khamgaon,   District   Buldhana    in

Anticipatory Bail Application No.45 of 2025 is hereby

quashed and set aside.

(iii) In the event of arrest, the appellants i.e. appellant

No.1 - Jagannath s/o Sadashiv Lanjulkar, appellant No.2 -

Yuvraj @ Abhijeet s/o Mugutrao Bele, appellant No.3 -

Sagar s/o Baliram Dambare and appellant No.4 - Gaurav s/o

Jagannath Lanjurkar shall be released on anticipatory bail,

in connection with Crime No.167/2024 registered with

Police Station Shegaon (Rural), District Buldhana for the

offences punishable under Sections 324, 323, 504, 506, 326

read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under

Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v) and (va) of the Scheduled