Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 6904
BENCH AT NAGPUR
Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J
Sau. Rekha w/o Anil Patil – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.784 OF 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mrs. A.P. Madhuri, Shri Jasprit Singh Chilhotra
For the Respondents: Shri I.J. Damle, Ms Soniya Gajbhiye
The court held that the absence of caste-based insults in the FIR allows for anticipatory bail, affirming that mens rea is essential in applying scheduled caste protections.
Headnote:(A) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va), 18, 18A - Anticipatory bail - Rejection of anticipatory bail application reversed where the allegations do not establish intentional insults based on caste, and the incident did not occur in public view. (Paras 13, 12)
(B) Appeal - The court examined the maintainability of anticipatory bail considering the applicability of the Act of 1989, stating that if no relevant cast-based insult is found in the FIR, a bar under the Act does not apply. (Para 12)
Facts of the case:
The appellants were accused of entering the informant's house, verbally abusing her, and physically assaulting her; however, there was no evidence of cast-based insults as needed under the Act of 1989.
Findings of Court:
The FIR lacked allegations of caste-related insults, thus not applicable under the Act, enabling the bail grant.
Issues: Whether allegations in the FIR warrant application of provisions under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act given there is no mention of caste humiliation.
Ratio Decidendi: Court reiterated that mens rea is crucial for applying the Act; when allegations do not specify caste humiliation, anticipatory bail can be granted.
Result: Appeal allowed; anticipatory bail granted to the appellants.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction to case and anticipation of arrest. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. f actual details of the incident and accusations listed in the fir. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. state's opposition to scheduled caste law applicability. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. critical assessment of fir related to caste allegations and court's stance on mens rea. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. court's decision on granting bail based on legal scrutiny of the fir. (Para 14) |
1.ADMIT. Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties.
2. By preferring this appeal under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the appellants have challenged the order passed in Criminal Bail Application No.1162/2022 whereby the Additional Sessions Judge-1, Amravati has rejected the anticipatory bail application of the present appellants.
3. The appellants are apprehending arrest at the hands of police as Crime No.492/2022 is registered against the present appellants on 16/09/2022 at police station Chandur Railway, District Amravati for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 452, 294, 143, 147, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1989’ for short).
4. As per the accusation in the FIR, on 16/09/2022 at about 1.00 p.m., present appellants entered into the house of the informant. Appellant No.2 was holding knife in her hand. It is alleged that all the appellants abused her and assaulted her by means of stones by entering into the house. It is further alleged that she was abused in a filthy language. On the basis of said report, police have registered the crime against the present appellants.
5. As per the contention of the present appellants that the provisions of Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Act of 1989 are not attracted, as there is no reference that the present appellants have abused or humiliated the informant on her caste. It is further the contention of the present appellants that as per the allegation, the alleged incident has taken place inside the house. Therefore, said incident has not occurred within the public view, therefore also the provisions of the Act of 1989 are not applicable. Hence, bar under Section 18 and 18A of the Act of 1989 is not attracted. It is further submitted by the appellants that as the custodial interrogation of the present appellants is not required and bar under Section 18 and 18A of the Act of 1989 is not applicable, therefore, they be released on anticipatory bail.
6. Said application is strongly opposed by the State on the ground that the appellants were knowing about the caste of the informant. Intentionally, they have abused the informant by knowing her caste, and therefore, the provisions of the Act of 1989 are attracted. As there is a bar under Section 18 and 18A, the application rightly rejected by the learned Special Judge. No ground is made out to release the present appellants on bail.
7. Learned Counsel for respondent No.2 also vehemently submitted that as there is a bar under Section 18 or 18A, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
8. She further submitted that as the informant was abused in a filthy language, the offence under Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Act of 1989 are attracted. As the present appellants entered into the house of the informant, abused her in a filthy language and also assaulted her by means of stones, therefore, custodial interrogation of the present appellants is required and prays for rejection of the appeal.
9. Having heard both the sides and on perusal of the investigation papers, it reveals that the FIR is lodged by the informant on an allegation that she is residing at Shivaji Nagar, Chandur Railway, on 16/09/2022, present appellants entered inside the house and abused her in a filthy language and assaulted her by means of s
