Milind Ramakant Ekbote vs State Of Maharashtra

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2018 Supreme(Bom) 2211

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
S.C. Dharmadhikari, Bharati H. Dangre, JJ.
Mr. Milind Ramakant Ekbote - Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 70, 150 of 2018
Decided On : 02-02-2018

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Niteen Pradhan with Ms. Shubhada Khot, Mr. Chintamani Ghate, Mr. Aditya Lasaria, Mr. Umesh S. Iyer and Ms. Ameeta Kuttikrishnan, Advocates, for the Appellant; Mrs. P.P. Shinde, A.P.P, for the State; Mr. Suresh Mane with Ms. Swati Lade, Advocates, for the original complainant in C.R.No. 19 of 2018; Mr. Nitin Satpute with Mr. Nitin Sonawane and Mr. Anil Kamble, Advocates, for the Applicant in APPA/150 of 2018 intervener; Deputy Sub Divisional Police Officer Mr. Ganesh More, Daund Division Dist Pune present, for the Respondent

Headnote:
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 - Section 14-A, 14-A(1), 18, 2(1)(a), 32(ec), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(x), 3(2)(va) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 438 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 366, 25, 24 - Complainant was Kidnapped - Anticipatory Bail - Mr. Pradhan appearing for appellant has submitted that order passed in present case by learned Trial Judge is traceable - Section 18 rules out applicability of section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - It says that nothing in section 438 of Code shall apply in relation to any case involving arrest of any person on an accusation of having committed an offence under this Act - In facts and circumstances of case, Mr. Pradhan would submit that once no offence punishable under this SCST Act is committed or made out from a reading of FIR even if allegations therein are taken to be correct, then, this bar enacted by section 18 is inapplicable - Once that is inapplicable, then, there was no embargo on learned Trial Judge to consider application for anticipatory bail moved by appellant - Whether a case for invocation of SCTS Act has been prima facie made out – Held, Prosecution case was referred in para 4 and there, victim was taken by two persons in a vehicle - She was forced to accompany them and as alleged, the victim was sought to be kidnapped - She narrated the whole version, based on which, FIR came to be registered - Only ground on which appellants were arranged was that other accused had made phone calls to them and one of arrested accused confessed that complainant was kidnapped at instance of one of appellants - Three accused were initially enlarged on bail - That order came to be challenged before Sessions Court - Sessions Court, without giving notice to these three accused, cancelled their bail - It is thereafter that they approached this court - That order of Sessions Judge was set aside and that of Magistrate was restored - It is in these circumstances that observations relied upon by Mr. Pradhan and to be found in para 7 have been made - Factual backdrop and context in which these observations have been made cannot be ignored – Court is of opinion, therefore, that this order is distinguishable on facts - After hearing both sides on this point and finding that appellants application for anticipatory bail has been rejected by trial court on a prima facie finding that Act was properly invoked and which finding has been endorsed and upheld by court, Court is not inclined to grant this request – Court do not find any perversity or error of law apparent on face of record or a serious legal infirmity in order under challenge - Consequently, Court also reject the request for stay of order - Appeal dismissed.

Judgement Key Points

Judgment on Anticipatory Bail by Sessions Court in Atrocity Cases under SC/ST Act

In cases involving offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act), Section 18 explicitly bars the applicability of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), which governs anticipatory bail. This provision states that nothing in Section 438 CrPC shall apply to any case involving the arrest of a person accused of committing an offence under the SC/ST Act. [4000614610002][4000614610029]

Role of the Sessions Court

The Sessions Court, functioning as a court of appeal or revision under Section 14-A(1) of the SC/ST Act, has jurisdiction to hear appeals against interlocutory orders (excluding certain specified ones) passed by lower courts, including those denying anticipatory bail. [4000614610001][4000614610003]
In the present matter, the Sessions Judge reviewed and rejected the appellant's anticipatory bail application (Criminal Bail Application No. 171 of 2018), upholding the trial court's prima facie finding that offences under the SC/ST Act (e.g., Sections 3(2)(v), 3(2)(x)) were made out based on the FIR and investigation materials. This rejection was appealed to the High Court under Section 14-A. (!) [4000614610034]

Key Considerations for Denial of Anticipatory Bail

Sessions Courts must prima facie verify if offences under the SC/ST Act are established before applying the Section 18 bar: - Scrutiny of FIR and Materials: Courts examine averments in the FIR, witness statements, and investigation papers to determine if there are specific allegations of atrocities (e.g., promoting enmity, hatred, or ill-will against SC/ST members under Section 3(1)(u), (v) or 3(2)(v)). Mechanical invocation without prima facie materials is impermissible, but if ingredients are met, Section 438 CrPC does not apply. [4000614610011][4000614610016][4000614610019][4000614610020][4000614610026] - No Requirement of Physical Presence: Offences can be committed remotely (e.g., via instigation, calls, or pamphlets), provided they aim to humiliate or promote enmity against SC/ST communities. [4000614610028] - Object of the Act: Enacted to protect vulnerable SC/ST members from indignities, harassment, and atrocities; procedural hurdles like anticipatory bail are overridden to ensure effective deterrence and investigation. [4000614610016][4000614610017]

High Court's Review of Sessions Order

The High Court dismissed the appeal against the Sessions Court's rejection, finding no perversity, error of law, or infirmity in the Sessions Judge's order. It endorsed the prima facie application of the SC/ST Act based on:
Complainant's FIR alleging targeted violence by non-SC/ST groups against SC/ST persons during a commemorative event.
Witness statements naming the appellant and linking him to provocative actions (e.g., press conference distributing material).
Call data and pamphlets as supportive investigation materials (not conclusive at bail stage). [4000614610022][4000614610025][4000614610029][4000614610030][4000614610034]
No Stay Granted: Post-dismissal, stay of the Sessions order was denied, emphasizing the upheld prima facie case. [4000614610033][4000614610034]

Distinguishing Factors

Prior bail grants in unrelated cases (e.g., based solely on call data without direct SC/ST atrocity links) were distinguished, as they lacked the contextual prima facie materials present here. [4000614610031]

Outcome: Anticipatory bail was denied at Sessions level due to the Section 18 bar, affirmed on appeal. Courts prioritize protecting SC/ST victims while ensuring investigations proceed unimpeded, intervening only if no prima facie case exists. [4000614610032][4000614610034]

JUDGMENT

S. C. Dharmadhikari, J. - This appeal is directed against the order passed on 22nd January, 2018 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, copy of which is at page 50 of the paper book (Annexure "H") in Criminal Bail Application No. 171 of 2018 and Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 32 of 2018. The appellant before us is arrayed as an accused in C. R. No. 9 of 2018 registered at Shikrapur Police Station.

2. This is an appeal traceable to section 14-A of the the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the SCST Act"). By sub-section (1) of section 14-A, an appeal can be filed against any judgment, sentence or order not being an interlocutory order of a Special Court or an Exclusive Special Court, to the High Court both, on facts and law.

3. Mr. Pradhan appearing for the appellant has submitted that the order passed in the present case by the learned Trial Judge is traceable to section 18 of the SC ST Act. Section 18 rules out the applicability of section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It says that nothing in section 438 of the Code shall apply in relation to any case involving arrest of any person on an accusation of having committed an offence under this Act. In the facts and circumstances of the case, Mr. Pradhan would submit that once no offence punishable under this SCST Act is committed or made out from a reading of the FIR even if the allegations therein are taken to be correct, then, this bar enacted by section 18 is inapplicable. Once that is inapplicable, then, there was no embargo on the learned Trial Judge to consider the application for anticipatory bail moved by the appellant.

4. Once the learned Trial Judge holds that this bar is attracted as offences punishable under the SCST Act are prima facie committed by the appellant, then, irrespective of the language of sub-section (1) of section 14-A, an appeal lies. He would, therefore, submit that the present appeal is maintainable.

5. We at once clarify that since there is no objection raised to the maintainability of this appeal, nor have the parties canvased any arguments on this issue, we proceed on the footing that the present appeal could have been filed and even argued before this court.

6. This Bench has not been assigned matters and particularly such criminal matters, which would enable it to take up this appeal and decide it. This appeal was moved before a Bench presided over by Hon''ble Mr. Justice B. R. Gavai on 31st January, 2018. As His Lordship recused himself, being a Bench alternate to the Bench presided of by Hon''ble Mr. Justice Gavai, this appeal was mentioned before us. On an oral request of Mr. Pradhan and bearing in mind the urgency, we listed it today for admission.

7. We have heard Mr. Pradhan at great length. We have also heard Mr. Pradhan on the amended grounds, which the appellant seeks to introduce in the memo of appeal as additional grounds. A formal prayer is made for leave to amend the memo of Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 2018. We grant leave to amend the memo and it be carried out within a period of one week from today.

8. Mr. Pradhan would submit that in the present case, the paper book would reveal that the FIR has been registered at the instance of the complainant. That complainant is residing, according to Mr. Pradhan, at village Vadu Budruk. Mr. Pradhan would submit that Chatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj, who was the son of Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj was supposed to have been killed and as per the historic record, at this place and his body parts were spread over in a large area. The history says that these body parts were collected and assembled and thereafter, there was a memorial erected at the site. That memorial is in the honour of this leader and warrior Chatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj. An organisation or Trust, which has erected and constructed this memorial has been established and the appellant is associated with it. There is no doubt that the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday