Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Ashraben Narharibhai Patel on 3 January, 2023
Bench: Samir J. Dave
R/CR.A/868/2022 ORDER DATED: 03/01/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 868 of 2022
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
ASHRABEN NARHARIBHAI PATEL
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR L. B. DABHI, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2,3
RULE UNSERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMIR J. DAVE
Date : 03/01/2023
ORAL ORDER
1. 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 30.12.2021 passed by the court of learned
Additional District Sessions Judge, Bodeli
granting anticipatory bail of the accused in
Criminal Misc. Application No.222 of 2021 and
to take the respondents No.1 and 2- accused in
custody forthwith.
R/CR.A/868/2022 ORDER DATED: 03/01/2023
2. Heard learned APP for the appellant-State.
3. 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 30.12.2021, had granted
the anticipatory bail to the respondents No.1
and 2-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
R/CR.A/868/2022 ORDER DATED: 03/01/2023
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 and 2 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.
4. Having heard learned advocate for the appellant
and findings arrived at by the trial court
while granting prayer made by the respondents
No.1 and 2, this court deems it not fit to
issue notice to the respondents.
R/CR.A/868/2022 ORDER DATED: 03/01/2023
5. 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
R/CR.A/868/2022 ORDER DATED: 03/01/2023
within public view; "
6. It appears from the record that the complainant
Manojbhai Nathabhai Solanki had filed a
complaint at Sankheda Police Station,
Chhotaudepur vide CR No.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
R/CR.A/868/2022 ORDER DATED: 03/01/2023
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 and 2 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) and 3(1)(S) of the Atrocity Act.
7. Thus, trial court has rightly observed in its
judgment and order dated 30.12.2021 while
allowing Criminal Misc. Application No.222 of
2021 preferred under Section 438 of the Code.
R/CR.A/868/2022 ORDER DATED: 03/01/2023
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 and 2. As no prima facie case is made out
by the prosecution against the respondents
nos.1 and 2, this appeal is summarily
dismissed.
(SAMIR J. DAVE,J)
MEHUL B. TUVAR
