High Court

Legal Reasoning

1IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD6 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 196 OF 20251. YALLAPPA S/O. DAMAJI GADDAMWAR2. SAWITRI W/O. YALLAPPA GADDAMWARVERSUS1. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA2. SAVITA W/O. DEVANAND GAIKWAD...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Naik Thigle Girish K. (Through V.C.)APP for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. S.B. Jadhav Advocate for Respondent No. 2 : Ms. Muley Sakshi Siddhivinayak…CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J.DATE : 03.07.2025 PER COURT : 1.Heard the parties.2.The appeal is for releasing the appellants on bail in theevent of their arrest in connection with crime registered with BasmathCity Police Station, District Hingoli, bearing no. 133/2025 dated05.03.2025, for the offence punishable under Sections 115 (2), 118(1),352, 3 (5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2024 with Sections 3 (1) (r),3 (1) (s), 3 (2) (va) of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.3.The appellants have also prayed for quashing and setting 2aside the impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge,Basmathnagar, in Criminal Bail Application No. 59/2025, passed on13.03.2025.4.In the FIR, it is alleged that the informant / respondent no.2 belongs to scheduled caste, she has kept bricks for construction of herhouse. The appellants happens to be neighbour. Appellant no. 1 –Yallappa, asked as to why the informant has kept the bricks forconstruction in front of his house and started abusing. The informanttold that she would shift the bricks. However, appellant no. 2 also camethere. She insulted and abused the informant in the name of her caste.Appellant no. 1 assaulted the informant with the help of wooden stick.The incident took place on the road. The informant then lodged thereport with the police. The appellants apprehending arrest approachedthe learned Special Court. However, their bail application came to berejected.5.Learned Advocate Mr. Thigle, vehemently submits that infact it was a pity quarrel on account of keeping the bricks in front of thehouse of the appellants. They are neighbours. There is no reason toabuse in the name of caste. A simple quarrel is given colour of atrocitycase. There are no specific allegations that the utterances were with the 3intention to humiliate or insult the member of scheduled caste. Herelies on the judgment in the case of Shajan Skaria Versus State ofKerala and Another, 2004 SCC Online SC 2249. He relied uponparagraph nos. 59, 60 and 80 of the said judgment. In paragraph no.59, he submits that the Court has considered the case of Hitesh Vermaand held that merely because a person happens to be belonging toscheduled caste is not a sufficient ground to attract the ingredientsoffence under atrocity act. Further, he submits that even otherwise thecustody of the appellants is not required. He prays for allowing theappeal.6.Learned APP for the State vehemently opposes theapplication. He submits that there are three eye witnesses to theincident. One of them is independent eye witness to support the case ofthe prosecution. There are clearly utterances in the name of castealleged against appellant no. 2. Appellant no. 1 has also assaulted theinformant and, therefore, offence is made out even against him. It isclear from the FIR itself that the offence has taken place in front of thehouse of these appellants. He thus, prays for rejection of the appeal.7.Learned Advocate for respondent no. 2 (appointed)submits that even after lodging of the offence on 11.03.2025, two 4unknown persons met to the informant and threatened to withdraw thecase. He thus, submits that there is threat to her. If appeal is allowed,there is every likelihood of the appellants pressurizing the witnessesand the informant. She also prays for rejection of the Appeal.8.Considering the case of Hitesh Verma, it is clear that in thatit was a dispute over the land. The Hon’ble Court observed that allinsult or intimidation to a person is not an offence under the AtrocityAct. Unless such insult or intimidation is on account of victimbelonging to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. In that case, the suitwas filed by the accused persons before the Court against theinformant. In paragraph no. 80 of the judgment, it is observed thatmere knowledge about the fact that the victim is a member of thescheduled caste and scheduled tribe is not sufficient to attract Section31 (r) of the Act. In the present case, it is specifically stated in the FIRthat the informant was specifically abused in the name of caste.Though, the quarrel took place on some other count, it cannot be lostsight of fact that it was happened before the public.9.It is also further seen that the incident is witnessed by threeother persons which clearly shows that the people have watched theincident. True it is that merely that person happens to be a person to be 5belonging to Scheduled Caste is not sufficient. However, at the sametime behind every such quarrel there is some reason. When the quarrelis limited only to that particular issue, there is no question of attractingthe ingredients of the offence. At the same time, it needs to be seen thatit is coupled by utterances in the name of caste coupled by some moreaction certainly attracts, atleast prima facie, ingredients of the offence.In the present case, there is utterances in the name of caste. Theinformant is even assaulted by appellant no. 1. So atleast at this stage,this Court finds that the case is made out to attract the ingredients.However, though prima facie, case is made out this Court find that theallegation of abusing the informant in the name of caste is only againstappellant no. 2. So far as appellant no. 1 is concerned, he has not givenany abuses in the name of caste. Thus, this Court find that the, primafacie, case made out only against appellant no. 2. 10.Learned trial Court has rightly observed that theingredients of the offence was attracted and rejected the application.This Court is of the opinion that the observations are correct only so faras appellant no. 2 is concerned. The order to the extent of applicantno.1 needs to be set aside.11.The Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. The appeal to the 6extent of appellant no. 2 stands rejected. The order of the learnedSessions Judge be modified to the extent of appellant no. 1.12.Appellant no. 1 shall be released on bail in the event of hisarrest in connection with FIR No. 133/2025 dated 05.03.2025 for theoffences punishable under Sections 115 (2), 118(1), 352, 3 (5) of theBhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2024 with Sections 3 (1) (r), 3 (1) (s), 3 (2)(va) of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention ofAtrocities) Act, 1989, on furnishing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand) with one surety in the like amount.13.He shall not contact the informant or any of the witnesseson usual conditions. He shall attend concerned Police Station as andwhen called by the Investigating Officer. He shall not enter in theBasmath City, till filing of the chargesheet except for attending thePolice Station. He shall furnish his address, mobile number and othercontact details to the concerned Police Station.14.Learned Advocate for respondent no. 2 is appointed. ThisCourt appreciates her efforts in preparing the matter. She shall beentitled to receive the fees from High Court, Legal Aid Services,Aurangabad, as per Rules. 715.At this stage, learned Advocate for the appellants seekscontinuation of interim relief, which is granted by this Court by orderdated 25.03.2025. Since it is running from last three months, the samebe continued for further period of three weeks.( KISHORE C. SANT, J. ) spc/-