The judgment emphasizes the importance of specific evidence and the possibility of exaggeration and false implication in cases involving allegations of harassment and assault.

JUDGMENT

1. The appellants have challenged the order dtd. 6/2/2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Thane in ABA No.285/2018. By the impugned order, the appellants' anticipatory bail application was rejected. In effect, the appellants are seeking anticipatory bail in connection with C.R. No.155/2018 registered at Navghar police station, Thane dtd. 12/4/2018 under Ss. 323, 504 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Initially, the FIR was also lodged under Sec. 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'the Atrocities Act'). Now because of the amendment in the Atrocities Act, Sec. 3(1)(r) of the Atrocities Act is applied.

2. Heard Mr. Murtuza Nazmi, the learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. S.R. Agarkar, the learned APP for the respondent No.1-State and Mr. Vaibhav Gaikwad, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

3. The FIR is lodged by the respondent No.2. He has stated that the appellant No.1 is his next door neighbour. The appellant No.2 is also residing in the same building. It is alleged that both the appellants used to pass derogatory remarks with reference to his caste. The FIR is in respect of the particular incident which has taken place on 20/1/2018 at about 11.00 p.m. It is alleged that on 22/1/2018, a religious ceremony was arranged behind their building. For that purpose many visitors were visiting the appellant No.1's house. They used to remove their foot-wear opposite the informant's house. The informant had pointed it out to the appellant No.1, but, he did not pay any heed. At about 11.00 p.m. on that night, the informant's mother had pushed those foot-wear away from their door. Both the appellants and their family members got angry. It is alleged that both the appellants abused him with reference to his caste. It is also alleged that both the appellants then gave fist blows to the family members of the informant. It is further alleged that on 22/1/2018 also the informant was assaulted by both the appellants behind their building where the pooja was to be performed. On this basis, the FIR was lodged.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that prior to lodging of the FIR, the informant had given a complaint to the police on 22/1/2018. In that complaint, there are no allegations that the appellants had abused the informant with reference to his caste. The only allegations are that they uttered words which were hurtful. It is also alleged in that complaint that the appellants had attempted to assault the informant's wife and mother. There are allegations that the informant and others were also beaten.

5. He submitted that as far as the incident dtd. 22/1/2018 is concerned, in that particular complaint it was mentioned that the appellants had instigated their friends to assault the informant meaning thereby that the appellants had not assaulted him but their companions had assaulted.

6. According to the learned counsel for the appellants these contradictions are irreconcilable and, therefore, there is a strong possibility of exaggeration. He further submitted that the informant's sister had lodged a complaint of her own on 22/1/2018 in respect of the separate incident but there was no reference to the incident dtd. 20/1/2018.

7. He further submitted that the appellant No.2's wife had lodged her own FIR on 24/1/2018 about outraging of her modesty by the informant. He, therefore, submitted that the appellants are falsely implicated.

8. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that the harassment was going on for some time and ultimately the respondent No.2 had to leave that society and at present he is residing elsewhere which shows that he is continuously harassed by the appellants.

9. He submitted that the informant had immediately approached the police and, therefore, there was no delay in making his grievance to the police.

10. He further submitted that the contradictions pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants