StateMr v. Y. Bhide
Legal Reasoning
C-Ant bail in atrocities-CrApeal582-24.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 582 OF 2024Balasaheb s/o Baban BalodeAge 44 years, Occu: BusinessR/o Khandgaon, SangamnerTq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar… AppellantVERSUS1.The State of MaharashtraThrough the Police InspectorCity Police Station, SangamnerDistrict Ahmednagar2.Gorakh s/o Khandu Rupwate,Age 39 years, Occu: Private JobR/o Khandgaon, SangamnerTq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar…RespondentsWITHCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 583 OF 20241.Ashok s/o Swargya ShindeAge 35 years, Occu: ServiceR/o Khandgaon, SangamnerTq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar2. Saya @ Sainath Ajimalang ShindeAge 27 years, Occu: Agril.R/o Khandgaon, SangamnerTq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar… AppellantsVERSUS1.The State of MaharashtraThrough the Police InspectorCity Police Station, SangamnerDistrict AhmednagarPage 1 of 11 C-Ant bail in atrocities-CrApeal582-24.odt2.Gorakh s/o Khandu Rupwate,Age 39 years, Occu: Private Job, R/o Khandgaon, Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar…RespondentsMr. K. N. Shermale, Advocate for the AppellantsMrs. Chaitali Chaudhari-Kutti, APP for Respondent No.1 StateMr. V. Y. Bhide, Advocate for Respondent No.2CORAM :Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.RESERVED ON :03.03.2025PRONOUNCED ON:27.03.2025JUDGMENT:-1.Heard.2. Admit and it is heard finally.3. By these Appeals, the appellants have challenged the order dated26.06.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, SangamnerDist. Ahmednagar, in Criminal Bail Application No. 202 of 2024, by whichthe application of the appellants for grant of anticipatory bail was rejected.4. The accusations against the present appellants are on the basis ofreport lodged by the informant/Gorakh Khandu Rupwate alleging that, on02.06.2024 at 10.30 am, when he was at Hivargaon village for hispersonal work, he had received phone call from his son Vansh, whoinformed him that, his son Vansh, his cousins Anil Rupavate and SunilRupavate had gone to their field, at that time, accused Ashok Shinde withother 5 to 6 persons came there and asked them as to why they ploughingPage 2 of 11 C-Ant bail in atrocities-CrApeal582-24.odtthe field as they are owner of said filed and abused them in filthylanguage as well as on caste. Therefore, his son informed him to comeimmediately. Therefore, the informant returned from said village and wasreached near Dairy of village Khandgaon, where his son and nephewsvisited him and informed about the incident. At that time, his wife Shitalalso visited there. After discussion about the incident when they wereproceeding to lodge the report with the Police Station, at that time, theaccused Ashok, Shinde, Balasaheb Baban Balode and other 4/5 personsalighted from four wheeler and took out iron rod and assaulted andthreatened them. At that time, accused Balasaheb Baban Balode askedthem to give land and abused them by saying that the fact of giving landnot coming in their mind as they belong to Scheduled Caste. At that time,the accused Ashok Shinde and his associates assaulted them with iron rodand ran away. Thereafter when all of them proceeded towards PoliceStation, the accused Ashok Shinde, Saya @ Sainath Ajimalang Shinde,Balasaheb Baban Balode and their associates came on Highway near AkolaNaka and assaulted them with iron road, fist and kick blows. Wheninformant’s wife Shital informant’s wife intervened, the accused caughther hair and tried to pull her clothes. It is further alleged that accusedBalasheb Balode abused them by saying that they belong to ScheduledCaste lower category. On the basis of said FIR, Crime No. 0479/2024registered with Sangamner City Police Station, District Ahmednagar forPage 3 of 11 C-Ant bail in atrocities-CrApeal582-24.odtthe offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 324, 354, 504,506, 341 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and ScheduledTribes (Prevention of Atrocities )Act, 1989.5. After registration of Crime, the appellants/accused Ashok Shindeand Saya @ Sainath Shinde and Balasheb Balode approached SpecialCourt/Sessions Judge, Sangamner by filing Criminal Bail Application No.202 of 2024 and prayed for anticipatory bail. On 26.06.2024, the learnedSpecial Court rejected said bail application.6. Being aggrieved by order of rejection of bail, the accusedBalasaheb Ajimalang Balode filed Criminal Appeal No.582 of 2024. Theaccused Ashok Swargya Shinde and Saya @ Sainath Ajimalang Shindefiled Criminal Appeal No. 583 of 2024 before this Court under section14(A) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities )Act and prayed foranticipatory bail.7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants in both theappeals canvassed that, as per recital of report, incident took place on02.06.2024 at about 10.30 hours, however, the informant lodged thereport at about 20.11 hours, therefore, there is delay while lodging thereport. As per contents of report, first incident of abusement on caste andPage 4 of 11 C-Ant bail in atrocities-CrApeal582-24.odtassault by the accused occurred in the agricultural field of the informant.The second incident of assault and abusement on caste occurred nearDairy of village Khandgaon and third incident occurred near Akole Nakaon Highway. However, the allegations made in the report is not sufficientto constitute the offence under Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(W)(ii), 3(1)(r),3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities )Act becausethe informant has not stated that, the incident of abusement on caste wasoccurred within public view and said incident was viewed by public. Theallegation made in the complaint about abusement on caste and merelyreference of caste is alleged it is not sufficient to attract provisions of theSC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities )Act, hence, bar under section 18A ofthe Act is not created.8. Per contra, the learned APP and the learned counsel appearing forrespondent No.2 informant strongly opposed the appeal. It is canvassedthat the incident is occurred at the public place i.e. first time in the field ofinformant, second near Dairy of village Khandgaon and third near AkoleNaka on Highway. Therefore Section 18-A of the SC & ST (Prevention ofAtrocities )Act creates bar. It is further canvased that, the accused arefrom upper caste and they are of criminal nature. Therefore, if the accusedare enlarged on anticipatory bail, in that event, there is every possibility oftampering prosecution evidence and possibility of issuance of threat to thePage 5 of 11
Legal Reasoning
C-Ant bail in atrocities-CrApeal582-24.odtinformant and other witnesses can not be ruled out, hence, prayed fordismissal of both appeals. 9. The learned APP further canvassed that the incident of abusementin caste witnessed by Smt. Parvatibai Sadashiv Kharat, who has stated inher statement that, on 02.06.2024, at about 10.30 a.m. when she visitedthe field of informant after hearing noise of quarrel, at that time, theaccused Ashok Shinde and his associates were abusing the informant’s sonand his nephews on caste. So also, the material available on record showsthat the accused persons abused the informant’s son and his nephew ontheir caste. The accused Ashok Shinde pulled hairs of the informant’s wifeand abused her in filthy language and outraged her modesty. Therefore,the applicants have not set out substantial ground to enlarge them on bail.Therefore, prayed for dismissal of both appeals.10. No doubt, Section 18 and 18-A of the Scheduled Castes andScheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, creates a bar for grant ofanticipatory bail in respect of crime registered under the Atrocities Act, ifsuch incident is occurred in the public view. However, where prima faciecase is made out, in that event, anticipatory bail can be granted inappropriate circumstances with a cautious exercise of power. In case ofVirendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2000 Cri. L.J. 2899, it is held that,if a person is even alleged of accusation of committing an offence underPage 6 of 11 C-Ant bail in atrocities-CrApeal582-24.odtthe SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities )Act, the intention of Section 18 isclearly to debar him from seeking the remedy of anticipatory bail and it isonly in the circumstances where there is absolutely no material to infer asto why section 3 has been applied to implicate a person for an offenceunder the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities )Act, the Courts would bejustified in a very limited sphere to examine whether the application canbe rejected on the ground of its maintainability.11.In the case of Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand andanother Vs. State of Uttarakhand, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that,insult or intimidation to a person will not be an offence under the 1989Act, unless such insult or intimidation is only on account of victimbelonging to SC/ST. Therefore, it is necessary to make out the case thatwhen member of vulnerable section of the society is subjected toindignities, humiliations and harassment, because of belonging to thatvulnerable section of society and such abuse should be in public view andobserved in paragraph 15, as under:-“15. As per the FIR, the allegations of abusing the informant werewithin the four walls of her building. It is not the case of theinformant that there was any member of the public (not merelyrelatives or friends) at the time of the incident in the house.Therefore, the basic ingredient that the words were uttered “in anyplace within public view” is not made out. In the list of witnessesappended to the charge-sheet, certain witnesses are named but itcould not be said that those were the persons present within thePage 7 of 11 C-Ant bail in atrocities-CrApeal582-24.odtfour walls of the building. The offence is alleged to have taken placewithin the four walls of the building. Therefore, in view of thejudgment of this Court in Swaran Singh, it cannot be said to be aplace within public view as none was said to be present within thefour walls of the building as per the FIR and/or charge-sheet.”12.In the Judgment delivered on 27.07.2022 in case of Sk. AkbarSk. Bismillah Vs. State of Maharashtra Criminal Application (APL) No.953of 2019 at Nagpur Bench of this Court held that, it require to make out thecase for threat and intimidation in conjunction with reference to the casteor community in the public view. 13. In recent judgment delivered on 31.01.2025 by the Hon’bleSupreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Criminal ) No. 8778-8779 of2024, Karuppudayar Vs. the State Ref. By the Deputy Superintendent ofPolice, Lalgudi Trichy & ors, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered thecase of Swaran Singh and others Vs. State, through Standing Cousnel andanother, (2008) 8 SCC 435 and case of Hitesh Verma Vs. State ofUttarakhand and another, (2020) 10 SCC 710 and held that, ‘withinpublic view’, the place should be open where the members of the publiccan witness or hear the utterance made by the accused to the victim. Ifthe alleged offence takes place within the four corners of the wall wheremembers of the public are not present, then it cannot be said that it hastaken place at a place within public view.Page 8 of 11 C-Ant bail in atrocities-CrApeal582-24.odt14. In case in hand, it appears that,the respondent No.2/informantlodged the FIR and alleged that, on 02.06.2024, at about 10.30 a.m.incident of abusement on caste and assault firstly occurred in agriculturalfield of the informant. The second incident of assault and abusement oncaste allegedly occurred near a Dairy of Village Khandgaon and thirdincident of assault and abusement on caste occurred near Akole Naka onHighway. However, the FIR does not disclose that, the incident ofabusement on caste to the informant’s son and his nephews occurred inpublic view or incident of utterance in caste was viewed by the public.15. No doubt the places of occurrence of incident of assault andabusement on caste allegedly occurred near Dairy of village Khandgaonand on Highwy near Akole Naka, however, the FIR does not discloseabout watching of said incident by the public or such incident occurredwithin public view. Therefore, considering the law laid down in the citedcase laws, I am on view that, Sections 18 and 18-A of the ScheduledCastes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act does not createbar to enlarge the appellants on anticipatory bail by invoking powersunder section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code.16. On perusal of the case diary it appears that, during the course ofinvestigation, the Investigating officer has seized two iron roads, handle ofbaseball like aluminum rod from area surrounding village Khandgaon andPage 9 of 11
Decision
C-Ant bail in atrocities-CrApeal582-24.odtcollected CCTV footage. Therefore, there is nothing remain to be seizedand it is not necessary to interrogate the appellants/accused.17. In view of the above discussion, both the appeals are deserveto be allowed and to enlarge the appellants/accused to release onanticipatory bail. Therefore, the impugned order dated 26.06.2024 passedby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangamner Dist. Beed inCriminal Bail Application No. 202 of 2024 needs to be quashed and setaside.18.On 3rd July, 2024, this Court (Coram: Shivkumar Dige, J.)passed an order in Criminal Appeal Nos. 582 of 2024 and 583 of 2024and enlarged the present appellants/accused on interim anticipatory bailin Crime No.479 of 2024 registered with Sangamner City Police StationDistrict Ahmednagar. Therefore, said order needs to be extended tillconclusion of the trial. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER (i)Criminal Appeal Nos. 582 of 2024 and 583 of 2024 areallowed.(ii)The impugned order dated 26.06.2024 passed by the learnedAdditional Sessions Judge, Sangamner Dist. Ahmednagar inPage 10 of 11 C-Ant bail in atrocities-CrApeal582-24.odtCriminal Bail Application No. 202 of 2024 is hereby quashedand set aside.(iii) The interim anticipatory bail granted by this Court on 3rdJuly, 2024 shall continue till conclusion of the trial in CrimeNo.479 of 2024 registered on 02.06.2024 with SangamnerCity Police Station, District Ahmednagar.( Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. )JPChavanPage 11 of 11