ARUN PRABHAKAR SAUDAGARVSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHERMr. Yuvraj v. Kakade
Legal Reasoning
(1)criapl865.24speakingTHIS ORDER IS CORRECTED AND UPLOADED IN VIEW OFTHE ORDER DATED 05-08-2025.IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPEAL NO.865 OF 2024ARUN PRABHAKAR SAUDAGARVSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHERANDCRIMINAL APPEAL NO.866 OF 2024ARUN PRABHAKAR SAUDAGARVSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHERMr. Yuvraj V. Kakade, Advocate for the appellant Mrs. A. S. Deshmukh, APP for the respondents/State Mr. R. R. Karpe, Advocate for the respondent/accusedCORAM:KISHORE C. SANT, J.DATE:30th JUNE, 2025P. C. 1.These appeals are filed by the original informantchallenging two separate orders dated 03-08-2024 passed belowExh. 1 in Criminal Bail Application Nos. 72/2024 and 71/2024respectively by the learned Sessions Court, Rahata granting bailto the accused/respondents in the event of their arrest in1 of 12 (2)criapl865.24speakingconnection with crime No. 367/2024 registered with Loni PoliceStation, Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar for the offences punishableunder sections 323, 324, 504, 506 read with section 34 of theIndian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of theScheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention ofAtrocities) Act [for short ‘the Atrocities Act’]2.The facts in short are that Crime No. 367/2024 cameto be registered at Loni Police Station, Rahata at the instance ofthe present appellants against the respondents. It is alleged thaton 26-06-2024 at 06.00 pm in the evening the appellant-informant, working as driver with one Amol Aher, was parkingthe car in the owner’s bungalow. When he opened the gate andstarted taking the car inside, three persons came on themotorcycle. The accused Mahesh stood in front of car abusingthe informant in the name of his caste saying that personsbelonging to the caste of the informant have become arrogant.One Saraswati tried to pacify accused Mahesh. The informanttook the car to the house of his owner. Amol also requested2 of 12 (3)criapl865.24speakingMahesh to let the informant park the car. On that Mahesh eventhreatened that he would cut the informant into the pieces. IfAmol comes in between he would finish even Amol. Maheshthereafter asked to hand over Arun to him otherwise, he wouldput the car on fire. While this incident was going on, the presentrespondent Vishal came at the spot. Vishal even told the wife ofthe informant, who had also came there that on that day onlythey would finish the informant. Mahesh, thereafter assaultedeven the wife of the informant. He also dragged her by holdingher hair. Vishal hit the informant with his shoes. On this, offencecame to be registered. The respondents in both the appeals filedCriminal Bail Applications bearing No. 72/2024 & 71/2024respectively seeking bail in the event of their arrest inconnection with aforesaid said crime. The learned SessionsJudge, by order dated 03-08-2024 allowed the applications andgranted protection to the respondents. The appellant-informantis therefore, before this court.3.The learned advocate Mr. Kakade, for the appellant-3 of 12
Legal Reasoning
(4)criapl865.24speakinginformant vehemently argued that the learned Sessions Judgehas erred in allowing the applications by granting protection tothe present respondents by ignoring mandate of section 18 andsection 18-A of the Atrocities Act. Clearly a case is made outattracting ingredients of the Atrocities Act of Section 3(2)(va)and 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Atrocities Act. It is wrongly takenthat quarrel was only on the parking of the car. He relied uponthe following judgments :1. Brij Nandan Jaiswal Vs Munna and ors 1 2. Anil Navnath Murkute Vs State of Maharashtra in Criminal Appeal No.351/2020 dated 10-08-20203. Munja Devi Vs Onkarjit Singh Ahluwalia and others 2 4. The learned advocate for the appellant-informantthus prays for quashing and setting aside the impugned orders.5.The learned advocate Mr. Karpe, for the respondentsvehemently argued that in fact no case is made out attractingthe ingredients of any of sections under the Atrocities Act. Whenno case is made out under the Atrocities Act, there is no question1AIR2009SC10212AIR2017SC15834 of 12 (5)criapl865.24speakingof bar of section 18 and 18-A of the Atrocities Act. So far asVishal is concerned, he has not uttered any word in the name ofhis caste. He relied upon the following judgments :1. Bhagirath Mahipat Singh Jadeja VS State of Gujrat 3 2. Gurucharan Singh and others Vs State (Delhi Administration) 4 3. Sanjay Chandra Vs Central Bureau Investigation 5 4. Brij Nandan Jaiswal VS Munna and others 6 5. Anil Navnath Murkute Vs State of Maharashtra in Criminal Appeal No.351/2020 dated 10-08-20206. Manju Devi Vs Onkarjit Singh Ahluwalia and Ors 7 7. Dolat Ram and others Vs State of Haryana 8 6.The learned APP vehemently opposed the appeals.She submits that looking at the FIR itself it is clear thatingredients of the offences alleged against the appellants areclearly attracted. It is clearly seen that the appellant not onlyuttered in the name of his caste but repeated the same 2-3times. She thus, prays for rejection of the appeals. 3(1984)1 SCC 2844(1978)1 SCC 1185(2012)1 SCC 406AIR2009SC10217AIR2017SC15838(1995) 1 SCC 3495 of 12 (6)criapl865.24speaking7.The learned advocate for the respondentsvehemently argued that for cancellation of bail overwhelmingreasons are required. If two views are possible, the High Courtshall not interfere with the order granting bail. Liberty of citizencannot be taken away lightly when it is specifically granted.8.In the case of Manju (Supra) the Hon’ble Apex Courthas specifically considered the provision of the Atrocities Act.The High Court had granted anticipatory bail for the offencespunishable under sections 3(1)(xi) of the Atrocities Act. TheHon’ble Apex Court considered the provision of section 18 andheld that when no case was made out attracting the provision ofthe Atrocities Act, no anticipatory bail application should havebeen entertained. It is held that when there was specificaverments in the complaint made by the complainant, bar undersection 18 would get attracted. The bail granted to the therespondents therein came to be cancelled. In the case of BrijNandan Jaiswal (Supra) it is held that the complainant canalways question the order granting the bail, if the said order is6 of 12 (7)criapl865.24speakingnot validly passed.9.Judgments cited by the respondents those are on thepower of the court to cancel bail. The judgment in the case ofBhagirathsinh Mahipat Singh Judeja (Supra) is on considerationfor cancellation of bail. It was a case under section 439(2). It isheld that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances arenecessary for cancellation of bail. The approach of the court inthe matter of bail is not that the accused should be detained byway of punishment. Consideration should be as to whether thepresence of the accused would be readily available for his trialand whether he is likely to abuse the discretion granted in hisfavour by tampering with evidence. The case of Dolat Ram(Supra) is on consideration for rejection of the bail. It is heldthat application for cancellation of the bail must be consideredand dealt with on different footing. It was a case of dowrydeath. The judgment in the case of Gurucharan Singh andothers (supra) is also on the power of the court to cancel thebail. Paramount considerations were given i] likelihood of the7 of 12 (8)criapl865.24speakingaccused fleeing from justice and ii] tampering with prosecutionevidence relating to ensuring fair trial.10.The case of Sanjay Chandra (Supra) is on the similarlines. In the case of Anil Navnath Murkute (supra) this courtconsidered the case of Vasantrao Wadgir VS State ofMaharashtra reported in 2020 ALL MR (Cri) 365. In that case itwas held that merely informant happens to be member of thescheduled caste or scheduled tribe is not material consideration.There must be averments in the complaint that the informantbelongs to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe and the accusedbelongs to open category.11.Considering the above judgments, it is clear that forcancellation of bail cogent and overwhelming reasons arerequired, when the application is under Section 439 (2). In thepresent case the ground taken is that the court has committedillegality while granting bail and failure of the court inconsidering the bar under Section 18 of the Act. So far as8 of 12 (9)criapl865.24speakingjudgment in the case of Manju Devi (Supra) is concerned, theHon’ble Apex Court has considered the case of cancellation ofbail, where the case was under Atrocities Act. The courtspecifically considered section 18 of the Atrocities Act. It is heldthat when a case is made out attracting the provisions of theAtrocities Act, bar under Section 18 automatically operates.12.In the present case, therefore, it needs to be seen asto whether offence is made out against the respondents underthe Atrocities Act. It is seen in the FIR that there is specificaverments as against accused Mahesh. Role of Mahesh is inaggravated form. After first incident took place, the informantwent in the house of car owner-Amol. Amol also came out andtried to pacify the Mahesh. Even thereafter, Mahesh kept onabusing the informant in the name of caste. Even after hisbrother and father came, he kept on abusing in the name ofcaste. So far as Vishal is concerned, he also assaulted theinformant with kicks and blows. They even assaulted the wife ofthe informant. Mahesh even hold the hair of wife of the9 of 12 (10)criapl865.24speakinginformant and pushed her. All these things clearly show thatthere is insult and abuse in the name of caste. 13.Though it is tried to be submitted that merelyutterance in the name of caste is not sufficient to attract theingredients of section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s), in the present case, itis seen that repeated utterance and specific threats given that hewould not allow the informant to park the car clearly shows thathe had insulated and humiliated the informant. The act ofholding the hair of the wife-Swati of the informant and pushingher also shows that the offence under Section 3(2)(va) is madeout, as it comes in the Schedule of the offence appended to theAtrocities Act. 14.The learned Sessions Court though discussed barunder Section 18 and 18-A of the Atrocities Act, failed toappreciate the purport of the section properly and hascommitted an error by entertaining bail application. So far assubmission on cogent and overwhelming reasons are required10 of 12 (11)criapl865.24speakingfor cancellation of bail, this court finds that the present case isan appeal. While exercising the powers of the appeal, the courtcan certainly look into the findings and observations of the trialcourt. When those findings and observations are found to be notcorrect, this court certainly has power to set aside the order. 15.The legislature has provided the appeal undersection 14(a) specifically with a view that the superior court canexercise power available with the appellate court even in thematter of grant of bail. Legislature specifically wants that nopowers of 438 of the Cr. P. C. ( Now Section 482 of BNSS) beavailable to the accused in the cases under the Atrocities Act.Looking from this angle, powers of the appellate court in appealare vide. The submissions that overwhelming circumstances arerequired for cancellation of bail cannot be appreciated.16.Now coming to the present case, it is to be seen thatas to whether the act is with an intention to humiliate or insultthe informant. While considering the cases of humiliation and11 of 12 (12)criapl865.24speakinginsult in the name of caste, the court must consider it from thepoint of view of the victim who is humiliated or insulted. Whenit is done in public, it has certainly more impact on the personwho is humiliated and insulted in public. No abuse in the nameof caste normally be taken as innocuous or unintentional.Normally every abuse in public place and utterance, the name ofcaste should be taken as insult in the name of caste.17.Considering all above, this court has no hesitation insetting aside the order passed by the learned Sessions Court.Hence, the following order:ORDERa]The appeals stand allowed. b]The impugned orders dated 03-08-2024 passedbelow Exh.1 in Criminal Bail Application Nos.72/2024 & 71/2024 by the learned Sessions Judge,Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar are quashed and set aside.c]Two weeks time is given to therespondents/accused to surrender from the date ofuploading of this order. [KISHORE C. SANT, J.]VishalK/criapl865.24speaking12 of 12