Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Rupeshbhai Govindbhai Patel on 4 May, 2022
Bench: B.N. Karia
R/CR.A/907/2022 ORDER DATED: 04/05/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 907 of 2022
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
RUPESHBHAI GOVINDBHAI PATEL
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS MONALI BHATT, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,10,11,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA
Date : 04/05/2022
ORAL ORDER
By preferring present appeal under Section 14A of the
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act 1989 (In short "Atrocity Act"), appellant-State has
requested to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated
29.12.2021 passed by the court of learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Bodeli granting anticipatory bail of the accused in
Criminal Misc. Application No. 217 of 2021 and to take the
respondents No.1 to 10 -accused in custody forthwith.
Heard learned APP for the appellant-State.
It was submitted by learned APP for the appellant-State
that The investigating officer had filed a detailed affidavit and
opposed the grant of the bail on 24.12.2021. The learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Bodeli, by way of impugned order
dated 29.12.2021, had granted the anticipatory bail to the
R/CR.A/907/2022 ORDER DATED: 04/05/2022
respondents No.1 to 10-accused persons. That, the accused
had formed illegal and unlawful assembly outside the school
where the election procedure going on. The accused had
uttered the humiliating words against the caste of the
complainant in public place and in presence of many persons.
The offence committed by the respondent are punishable
under Sections 3(1)(N), 3(1)(R) and 3(1)(S) of the Atrocity Act.
That, trial court ought to have considered that affidavit filed by
the investigating officer in which it was categorically stated
that there are 13 eye witnesses who were present at the time of
the incident. Out of 13 witnesses, 3 were the police officers
namely (1) Vandeviben (W.ASI), (2) Sanjay Tadvi (Home
Guard) and (3) Kamleshbhai Tadvi (Home Guard) and there
are other independent eye witnesses too. That, trial court
ought to have considered that the accused persons had given
the threat to the complainant and in that circumstances,
granting the anticipatory bail to the accused persons in much
lenient view in favour of the respondents no.1 to 10 which is
not permissible as per the Atrocity Act. As per section 18 of the
Atrocity Act, the provision of anticipatory bail clearly barred
and the order passed by learned District and Sessions Court
which is beyond the statutory powers.
Having heard learned advocate for the appellant and
findings arrived at by the trial court while granting prayer
R/CR.A/907/2022 ORDER DATED: 04/05/2022
made by the respondents No.1 to 10, this court deems it not fit
to issue notice to the respondents.
Prosecution has attracted Section 3(1)(N), 3(1)(R) and
3(1)(S) of the Atrocity Act.
Section 3(1)(N) of the Atrocity Act provides as under:
Whoever not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe, after the poll, causes hurt or grievous hurt or
assault or imposes or threatens to impose social or economic
boycott upon a member of Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
Tribe or prevents from availing benefits of any public service
which is due to him.
Section 3(1)(R) of the Atrocity Act provides as under:
Whoever not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe, intentionally insults or intimidates with intent
to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
Tribe in any place within public view;
Section 3(1)(S) of the Atrocity Act provides as under:
Whoever not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe, abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public
view;
It appears from the record that the complainant
Manojbhai Nathabhai Solanki had filed a complaint at
Sankheda Police Station, Chhotaudepur vide CR No.
R/CR.A/907/2022 ORDER DATED: 04/05/2022
11184009210842 of 2021 on 20.12.2021 for the offence
punishable under Sections 143, 147, 149, 504 and 506(2) of
the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(N), 3(1)(R) and 3(1)
(S) of the Atrocity Act. As per the case of the complainant, the
accused persons had insulted by uttering filthy words for the
caste of the complainant. All the accused formed unlawful
assembly and threatened the complainant. In the entire
complaint, it is nowhere stated by the complainant that after
the poll, any hurt or grievous hurt was caused or any assault
was made. It is nowhere stated in the complaint that any
threaten was imposed social or economic boycott upon him
being a member of Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or
prevents from availing benefits of any public service which is
due to him. No averments are made by the complainant in his
complaint to attract Section 3(1)(N) of the Atrocity Act. Further
clear absence of intention to insult or intimidate with intent to
humiliate the complainant being a member of SC/ST in any
place within public view is also there in the complaint.
Further, if we again read the entire complaint filed by the
complainant, it is nowhere stated that the respondents No.1 to
10 have abused the complainant, he being a member of SC/ST
by caste name in any place within public view. No specific
allegations were made by the complainant against the accused
persons to attract the provisions of Sections 3(1)(N), 3(1)(R)
R/CR.A/907/2022 ORDER DATED: 04/05/2022
and 3(1)(S) of the Atrocity Act.
Thus, trial court has rightly observed in its judgment and
order dated 29th December 2021 while allowing Criminal
Misc. Application No. 217 of 2021 preferred under Section
438 of the Code. As per opinion of this Court, no error is
committed by the trial court in granting anticipatory bail in
favour of the respondents no.1 to 10. As no prima facie case is
made out by this prosecution against the respondents nos. 1 to
10, this appeal is summarily dismissed.
(B.N. KARIA, J)
K. S. DARJI
