Babu @ Vilas Ramrao Chavan v. 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Dhondiba Malhari Namwad
Case Details
77-criapeal-49-22 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.49 OF 2022 Babu @ Vilas Ramrao Chavan … Appellant Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Dhondiba Malhari Namwad … Respondents .… Mr. D.A. Mane, Advocate h/f Mr. M.M. Patil, Advocate for the Appellant Mr. G.O. Wattamwar, APP for the Respondent No.1/State Mr. V.P. Bakal, Advocate (appointed) for Respondent No.2 .… CORAM : SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J. DATE : 17 AUGUST, 2022 PER COURT:- . This appeal is directed against the rejection of anticipatory bail application moved by the present appellant before the Additional Sessions Judge-1, Udgir, Distr. Latur, whereby the prayer for anticipatory bail came to be rejected. 2.
Legal Reasoning
Atrocities Act, prima facie do not attract in view of the nature of allegations levelled against the appellant in the F.I.R.. 4. Mr. Mane, learned counsel for the appellant has placed his reliance in case of Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand 2 of 9 77-criapeal-49-22 3 and another reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710. By placing reliance on the above said citation, he urged to grant anticipatory bail by setting aside the impugned order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-1, Udgir. 5 Mr. Mane further invited my attention to the copy of F.I.R. lodged by respondent No.2 and pointed out that prima facie Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) do not attract even if this so called abuses are taken at its face value. He, therefore, urged to allow the appeal. 6. Mr. Wattamwar, learned APP strongly opposed to allow this appeal and grant anticipatory bail to the appellant. He submitted that the incident had taken place in a feld, which is in the public view as contemplated under Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The appellant had used the specifc word with reference to the caste of the frst informant, as such, the provisions of Atrocities Act do attract. The appellant is not entitled to get any protection in view of par provided under Section 18 (A) of the Atrocities Act. 3 of 9 77-criapeal-49-22 4 7. Mr. Bakal, learned counsel for respondent No.2 also opposed to allow the application and grant anticipatory bail to the appellant. He also took me through the provision of Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and submitted that if the F.I.R. lodged by respondent No.2 is taken into consideration, prima facie, the provisions of Atrocities Act do attract. The incident had taken place within a public view as contemplated under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to get any protection. 8. I have considered the submissions of both the sides and also perused the copies of F.I.Rs. 9. Crime No.181 of 2021 came to be registered at Jalkot Police Station on the basis of F.I.R. lodged by respondent No. Dhondiba Malhari Namwad for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the appellant. 4 of 9 77-criapeal-49-22 5 10. On going through the F.I.R. (page 20), lodged by the appellant Vilas Ramrao Chavan, it is revealed that crime No.182 of 2021 came to be registered at same police station for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 325, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against respondent No.2 and his family members. 11. On perusing both the above referred F.I.Rs., it is very much clear that the incident had taken place between two groups on 04.12.2021 at about 4.30 p.m. on account of grazing the goats on the common Bandh of the feld of appellant and respondent No.2. In the said incident, the members of both the parties have sustained injuries. On going through the medical papers of the present appellant, which are on record (Page Nos. 25 to 32), it would reveal that the appellant had sustained Grade-II fracture injuries and head injury. He was required to be admitted in the ICU for a considerable period. 12. Now coming to the crucial question about the application of the provisions of the Atrocities Act in view of F.I.R. lodged by the parties against each others. On going through the F.I.R. lodged by the frst informant/respondent 5 of 9 77-criapeal-49-22 6 No.2 vide crime No. 181 of 2021, there is reference of one word with reference to caste coupled with abusive language with reference to the caste. As pointed out earlier, there is only one word with reference to the caste is refected in the F.I.R. lodged by the frst informant/respondent No.2. It is no doubt that the incident had taken place in a feld, which is within the public view. On careful reading of Section 3(1)(r) of the Atrocities Act, makes it the position clear. It starts with whoever intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within a public view. On careful reading of the F.I.R. lodged by respondent No.2/frst informant, it is diffcult to gather that the present appellant has used that specifc word of abuse with an intention to insult the frst informant or humiliate him within a public view. They are having adjacent lands and they are knowing about their respective castes. It is diffculty to digest that the appellant has used such one abusive word intentionally to humiliate or to insult the frst informant and his family members. To support my view, reliance can be placed in case of Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another (supra), wherein it is held by the Apex Court in para 18 as under: 6 of 9 77-criapeal-49-22 7 “18. Therefore, offence under the Act is not established merely on the fact that the informant is a member of Scheduled Caste unless there is an intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the reason that the victim belongs to such caste. In the present case, the parties are litigating over possession of the land. The allegation of hurling of abuses is against a person who claims title over the property. If such person happens to be a Scheduled Caste, the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act is not made out.” 13. Under these circumstances, it is diffcult to attract Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Atrocities Act against the present appellant. While granting the interim relief, this court has imposed certain conditions. It is not a case that the appellant has not cooperated with the investigation machinery in the investigation. 14. Having regard to the facts of the case in hand and looking to the aspect of counter F.I.Rs. fled by the respective parties against each others, and looking to the important point of shortness to attract the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, it would be appropriate to confrm the interim 7 of 9 77-criapeal-49-22 8 protection granted by this Court, however, on certain conditions, which would take care of remaining part of the investigation.
Arguments
Heard Mr. D.A. Mane holding for Mr. M.M. Patil, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Wattamwar, learned APP for respondent No.1/State and Mr. V.P. Bakal, learned counsel (appointed) for respondent No.2. 1 of 9 77-criapeal-49-22 2 3. Mr. Mane, learned counsel for the appellant invited my attention to the copy of the F.I.R. (page 20), which is lodged by the appellant against the frst informant arising out of the same incident. He took me through the relevant part of the F.I.R. lodged by the present appellant and submitted that in the said incident, the frst informant/respondent No.2 and his family members had brutally assaulted to the present appellant. He was seriously injured. He was taken to Kalyani Orthopedic Centre and Accident Hospital at Udgir. The appellant had sustained Grade-II compound fracture injuries. He was shifted to ICU for further line of treatment. He was admitted in Pama City Care Hospital and Intensive Care Unit and he was discharged on 25.12.2021. He submitted that in the incident, the appellant had sustained grievous injuries. In order to give the counter blow, respondent No.2 has lodged the F.I.R. giving colour so as to attract the provisions of the Atrocities Act. He submitted that the provisions of the
Decision
O R D E R (i) The appeal stands allowed. (ii) The impugned order passed in criminal bail application No.239 of 2021 dated 04.01.2022 in connection with Crime No.181 of 2021 registered at Jalkot Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is hereby quashed and set aside. (iii) The interim protection granted by this Court vide order dated 04.02.2022 is hereby confrmed on following conditions:- (a) The appellant shall remain present as and when called by the Investigating Offcer for investigation and co-operate to the investigation machinery. (b) The appellant shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses and evidence in any manner. (c) The appellant shall furnish his in detail address with Cell Number with the trial court as well as the concerned investigating offcer. 8 of 9 77-criapeal-49-22 9 (iv) Inform the concerned court and police station accordingly. (v) The Criminal appeal is accordingly disposed of. (vi) Mr. V.P. Bakal, learned counsel is appointed by this Court to prosecute the cause of respondent no.2. As such, professional fees of Mr. Bakal is quantifed at Rs.5000/- to be paid by the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Aurangabad. S.P. Rane [ SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI ] JUDGE 9 of 9