SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Bom) 2231

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Urmila Joshi Phalke, J.
Ajinkya - Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 365 of 2023
Decided On : 27-06-2023

Advocates appeared:
P.R.Agrawal, Advocate, M.J.Khan, Advocate, Rekha Godbole, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that anticipatory bail can be granted in cases under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act if the allegations do not prima facie constitute an offence under the Act, emphasizing the need for judicial scrutiny of the FIR.

Headnote:

ANTICIPATORY BAIL - SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBE (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989 - Sec. 14A, Sec. 18, Sec. 438 of Cr.P.C., Sec. 3(1)(r), Sec. 3(1)(s) - The court analyzed the provisions of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, particularly Sec. 18, which bars anticipatory bail in cases under the Act unless a prima facie case is not made out. The court emphasized that it must examine the FIR to determine if the allegations meet the criteria for the Act's application. The court found that the allegations did not constitute intentional insults with intent to humiliate, leading to the conclusion that the bar under Sec. 18 was not applicable, thus allowing the anticipatory bail application.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant, Ajinkya Ghogare, a Junior Engineer, sought anticipatory bail after being accused of assaulting Manoj Rameshrao Ingle, who alleged that Ghogare attempted to strangle him and insulted him based on his caste. The appellant contended that the allegations were false and motivated by a prior complaint he made against Ingle regarding obstruction of his official duties.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the allegations in the FIR did not establish a prima facie case under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It noted that the informant's claims lacked sufficient evidence of intentional humiliation in public view, and the appellant had a credible alibi supported by CCTV footage.

Issues: Whether the allegations against the appellant constituted an offence under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and whether the bar under Sec. 18 of the Act applied to deny anticipatory bail.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the bar under Sec. 18 of the Act does not preclude the examination of the FIR to determine if a prima facie case exists. It concluded that the allegations did not meet the necessary criteria for the application of the Act, allowing for the possibility of anticipatory bail.

Final Decision: The court quashed the order rejecting the anticipatory bail application and granted bail to the appellant, subject to certain conditions.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. ADMIT. Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties.

2. Present appeal is preferred by the appellant under Sec. 14A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1989' for short) against the order by which the anticipatory bail application of the appellant, is rejected by the Sessions Court.

3. Present appellant has filed an application for grant of anticipatory bail under Sec. 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Crime No.459 of 2023 registered at police station Gadge Nagar, Amravati under Ss. 323, 504, 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and under Ss. 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The appellant is apprehending his arrest at the hands of the Police as crime is registered on the basis of report lodged by Manoj Rameshrao Ingle on an allegation that on 1/4/2023 at about 2.20 p.m., he reached at Irvin square, near Rajeshwari Vidyalaya near his house on Priyanka colony road. At about 4.15 p.m., when he was alone on the road one person came by covering his face by dupatta and snatched dupatta which was around his neck. Due to which he fallen on the ground. During scuffle he removed the dupatta of the said person and it revealed to him that said person is the present appellant by name Ajinkya Ghogare. It is further alleged that the present appellant attempted to press his neck by means of said dupatta and assaulted him by fist and kick blows and also threatened him. On the basis said report, police have registered the offence against the present appellant.

4. As per the contention of the present appellant he is qualified as a Bachelor of Engineering and working as a Junior Engineer with the Amravati Municipal Corporation from the year 2018. The Amravati Municipal Corporation reserved one land for library, primary school and vegetable market vide Reservation No.11, 12 and 13. However, there is slum area at Mouza Shegaon within the limits of Amravati Municipal Corporation. The informant, who claims to be an office bearer of the Republican Party of India and holding the post of Youth City President of the Republican Party of India since 2021, there was correspondence by the office bearer of the Republican Party of India for regularizing the encroachment by the person on the aforementioned reservations. Under the scheme known as "Pradhan Mantri Aawas Yojana" several persons who are residing in the slum area, have made an application for getting the residence under the said scheme. The present appellant was entrusted the work of spot inspection under the said scheme in order to determine the entitlement of the beneficiaries. The informant used to extend threats to the government officials in order to pressurize them. On 10/2/2023, the informant have made a complaint with the Collector, Amravati requesting to remove the appellant from his post. Thus, the informant was having grudge against the present appellant. On 24/2/2023, when the appellant along with the Deputy Engineer Shri Sunil Chaudhary had been to mouza Shegaon for conducting the survey, at that time the informant obstructed them and the appellant has reported the said incident to the Gadge Nagar police station. On the basis of the report lodged by the present appellant crime is registered against the informant under Ss. 353, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code vide Crime No.299 of 2023. The informant was arrested in the said crime and subsequently, released on regular bail.

5. On 21/3/2023 the informant through one another Sanghtana filed a representation to the Commissioner, Amravati Municipal Corporation and made a complaint against the appellant. The Corporation has directed the City Engineer to prepare report. Pending the enquiry, the informant have filed this report with the false allegation that he was abused and assaulted by the present appellant. In fact, present appellant had no o

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top