Bombay High Court
Shashikant S/O Wamanrao Chopde vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Pso Ps ... on 25 March, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:3319
1 931apeal628.2024.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 628 OF 2024
APPELLANT Shashikant s/o Wamanrao Chopde,
Age 35 years, Occu: Private,
R/o Dabki Road, Akola, Tah. and District
Akola.
-VERSUS-
RESPONDENTS 1. State of Maharashtra, through
Police Station Officer, Police Station -
Dabki Road, District Akola.
2. Prashant s/o Kashiram Bhatkar,
Age-52 Years, Occu: Private,
r/o Mothi Umri, Near Rashtriya School,
Dabki Road, Akola.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. A.S. Thogange, counsel for appellant.
Ms. H.N. Prabhu, APP for respondent/State.
Mr. Shrikant Songade, counsel h/f Mr. Z.Z. Haq, counsel for
respondent No.2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
DATE : 25/03/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT :
rkn
2 931apeal628.2024.odt
1. Heard.
2. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of learned
counsels appearing for the parties.
3. By preferring this appeal, the appellant has
challenged the order passed by the learned Special Judge, Akola,
under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act in Criminal Bail Application 654/2024, by which
the anticipatory bail application of the present appellant is
rejected.
4. The crime is registered on the basis of the report
lodged by Prashant Kashiram Bhatkar vide Crime No.392/2024
registered under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act of 1989') and under
Section 296 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The allegation
against the present appellant is that the present appellant belongs
to the political party Shiv Sena and he is the office bearer of Akola
Zilla Shiv Sena. On 10/10/2024 there were some abuses on the
WhatsApp as regards to the Gopikishanji Radhakishan Bajoriya. It
was further alleged that on 11/10/2024 at about 4.30 to 5.00
rkn
3 931apeal628.2024.odt
p.m., the appellant, along with the other persons, had been to
Rudra Fitness Center, and the informant, along with Vikksingh
Bawari and Vaibhav Chaudhari, also went there, at the relevant
time, there was a hot exchange of words, and during the hot
exchange of words, the present appellant abused him on his caste.
On the basis of the said report, police have registered the crime
against the present appellant, and therefore the appellant
approached the Special Court for grant of bail, however, the
Special Court rejected the prayer on the ground that there is a bar
under Section 18-A of the Act of 1989.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as
far as the allegations are concerned, which are due to the political
rivalry. He submitted that considering that the election is declared
and the appellant is involved in canvassing for his party and,
therefore, to keep him behind bar, the baseless allegations are
levelled against him. He submitted that even accepting the
allegation as it is, nowhere it reveal that the appellant had any
intention to humiliate him during the hot exchange of words; that
sentence might have been used by the present appellant, but
considering that every humiliation or every insult does not come
rkn
4 931apeal628.2024.odt
under the provisions of Section 3(1)(r) and the custodial
interrogation of the present appellant is not required, he be
protected by granting anticipatory bail.
6. Learned APP and learned counsel for the complainant
strongly opposed the said appeal on the ground that there is a bar
under Section 18-A of the Act of 1989. Moreover, the appellant is
not cooperating with the investigating agency. It is further
submitted that considering the bar under Section 18-A, the appeal
deserves to be dismissed.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant,
learned APP for the State, and the learned counsel for the
complainant, and perused the recitals of the FIR, there is no
dispute that the present appellant belongs to the Shiv Sena Party.
There is also no dispute that the elections are declared and the
appellant, who is the office bearer of the said party, had been to
the Gym, wherein there was a dispute between the informant and
the present appellant and the other person. It is alleged that the
present appellant has used humiliating words against the
informant on his caste. On perusal of the allegations, it reveals
that the reference of the caste was uttered allegedly by the present
rkn
5 931apeal628.2024.odt
appellant. This aspect was also dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex
Court recently in the case of Shajan Skaria Vs. The State of Kerala
and another in Criminal Appeal No.2622/2024 decided on
23.08.2024, wherein while dealing basic ingredients of the Section
3(1)(r) which requires to constitute the offence, the Hon'ble Apex
Court observes 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. It is further observes that the various decisions rendered by
the Apex Court shows that the purport of the Act, 1989 is not 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.
We say so because the object behind the enactment of the Act,
rkn
6 931apeal628.2024.odt
1989 was to provide stringent provisions for punishment of
offences which are targeted towards persons belonging to the SC/
ST communities for the reason of their caste status.
8. In view of the above observations, at this stage,
considering the allegations levelled against the present appellant,
appellant has made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order.
a] The criminal appeal is allowed.
b] The order passed by the Special Judge, Akola under
the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, in Criminal Bail
Application No. 654/2024, rejecting the anticipatory
bail application is hereby quashed and set aside.
c] The order dated 25/10/2024 granting ad-interim
protection granted to the present appellant deserves
to be confirmed, subject to the condition that the
appellant shall attend the concerned Police Station as
and when required for the investigation purpose and
shall cooperate with the investigating agency.
rkn
7 931apeal628.2024.odt
d] The appellant shall not induce, threat or promise any
witnesses who are acquainted with the facts of the
case.
9. The criminal appeal is disposed of.
[URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.]
rkn
