Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 1307
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J
MOHAN SUNIL MUNDE AND ANOTHER – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MAH. THR. PSO PS DHAMANGAO BADE TAL.MOTALA DIST.BULDHANA AND 2 OTHERS – Respondent
APEAL 299 / 2024
Mr. S.A. Kulkarni, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. C.A. Lokhande, APP for the State. Ms F.N. Haidari, Advocate (appointed) for respondent No.3.
The absence of caste-related allegations in the FIR permits the maintainability of an anticipatory bail application under the Atrocities Act.
Headnote:(A) Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 14A - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 324, 504, 506 - Anticipatory bail application rejected by Special Judge - Appellants challenged rejection citing lack of caste-based allegations - Court found prima facie case not established under Atrocities Act - Appeal allowed, granting anticipatory bail. (Paras 2-8)
(B) Anticipatory Bail - Bar under Sections 18 and 18A of the Atrocities Act - Court held that if no prima facie case is made out, anticipatory bail application is maintainable. (Paras 6-7)
Facts of the case:
The appellants faced allegations of assault and threats without any initial caste-related abuse mentioned in the FIR. The informant later added caste allegations after a significant delay.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the allegations were general and did not substantiate a prima facie case under the Atrocities Act, allowing for anticipatory bail.
Issues: The main issues were whether the allegations constituted a prima facie case under the Atrocities Act and the applicability of the bar under Sections 18 and 18A.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence of caste-related allegations in the FIR allowed for the maintainability of the anticipatory bail application.
Result: Appeal allowed.
ADMIT. Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties.
2. This is an appeal under Section 14A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Atrocities Act’ for short), the appellants have challenged the order dated 08/05/2024 whereby the Special Judge, Malkapur rejected the anticipatory bail application of the appellants bearing Criminal (Anticipatory) Bail Application No.115/2024.
3. The appellants are apprehending arrest at the hands of police in connection with Crime No.71/2024 registered with Police Station Dhamangaon Bade, District Buldhana for the offence punishable under Sections 324 , 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
4. The accusation against the present appellants are on the basis of the report lodged by the informant Dhanaraj Jayraj Chouke on an allegation that on 20/03/2024 at about 3.00 p.m. he and his friend had been to the house of one Santosh Gaikwad for some construction work. At the relevant time appellant No.1 came there and assaulted them by means of plastic pipe. Appellant No.2 beat the victim with a stick. It is alleged that both the appellants abused and threatened the informant and the victim. On the basis of said report, police have registered the crime. After registration of the crime they approached to the Special Court by filing an application for grant of anticipatory bail but the same was rejected in view of the bar under Section 18 of the Atrocities Act. Being aggrieved with the same, present appeal is preferred by the appellants.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that as far as application of provisions of Atrocities Act is concerned, there is even no whisper regarding caste of the present informant. There is no abuses on their caste also. After thought after 20 days the said allegations are made by the informant. He further submitted that he has produced the caste certificate on 01/04/2024 and thereafter his statement was recorded on 02/04/2024. He submitted that initially there was no allegation as to the abuses on the caste subsequently this allegation is made. As far as bar under Section 18 or 18A of the Atrocities Act is not attracted and general allegations are made against the present appellants.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned Counsel for respondent No.3 strongly opposed the prayer on the ground that in view of bar under Section 18 and 18A of the Atrocities Act, the application is not maintainable. Hence, the appeal is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
7. I have heard learned Counsel for both the parties. Perused the investigation papers from which it reveals that there is no allegation as to the abuses on the caste and subsequently after 15 days of the lodging of the FIR this allegation is made by the informant and the other witnesses. The allegation is also general in nature and if that allegation is also taken into consideration it only refers to the caste. As far as bar under Sections 18 or 18A of the Atrocities Act is concerned if the prima facie case is not made from the recitals of the FIR, the application for anticipatory bail is maintainable. Hence, the appellants are made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail. In view of that, the interim protection granted to the present appellants vide order dated 21/05/2024 deserves to be confirmed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order :
(i) The appeal is allowed.
(ii) The order dated 08/05/2024 passed by the Special Judge, Malkapur in Criminal (Anticipatory) Bail Application No.115/2024, is hereby quashed and set aside.
(iii) In the event of arrest, the appellants – 1) Mohan Sunil Munde and 2) Dipak Suresh Renuke in connection with Crime No.71/2024 registered with Police Station Dhamangaon Bade for the offence punishable under Se
