Insufficient evidence of casteist abuse leads to granting of anticipatory bail under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1 Heard. Admit. Heard finally, considering the fact that the appeal is by the accused in Crime No.37of 2018 registered with Police Station Sailkheda, Nashik, challenging rejection of their application for anticipatory bail, by the learned Special Judge, Niphad.

2 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/accused. He drew my attention to the First Information Report (FIR) of Crime No.36 of 2018 lodged by appellant/accused no.1 against the respondent no.2/First Informant and others alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and argued that the said FIR is a counterblast to this FIR lodged first in point of time by the appellant/accused no.1 Sandip Nagare, who happens to be Sarpanch of Village Varedarana. By taking me to the subject FIR of Crime No.I-37 of 2018 lodged by respondent no.2/Mangala Pawar, the learned counsel argued that the FIR itself, even if the averments made therein are accepted, shows that in a fit of anger, appellant/accused nos.3 and 4 namely Madhukar Nagare and Anil Nagare gave casteist abuses and there was no intention on their part to humiliate the member of the Scheduled Castes. The learned counsel further argued that now on completion of investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed and statements of independent witnesses such as Jyoti Vasave - Gram Sevika, Vasant Pawar – Peon, Ramesh Suryavanshi – Police Patil and Digambar Sonawane - Clerk of Gram Panchayat show that no such incident, as alleged, took place. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for appellants/accused, the learned Special Judge erred in rejecting the claim for anticipatory bail of appellants/accused. It is further argued that respondent no.2 belongs to another faction in the Gram Panchayat and she as well as her associates are continuously alleging several complaints against appellants/ accused. My attention is drawn to such complaints at page nos.38 to 46 of the paper book.

3 As against this, the learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 opposed the appeal by contending that appellant no.1 is indulging in several illegal activities and he is being externed under the provisions of the Maharashtra Police Act. The learned counsel further argued that the learned trial court has rightly considered the prima facie material to reject the application for anticipatory bail. He placed reliance on paragraph 8 of the impugned order.

4 The learned APP opposed the appeal by contending that there are specific allegations in respect of the offence punishable under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, found in the FIR, and therefore, the appellants/accused are not entitled for anticipatory bail.

5 I have considered the submissions so advanced and perused the record made available including the copy of the charge-sheet which is shown to this court at the time of hearing of the matter.

6 Appellants as well as respondent no.2/ First Informant Mangala Pawar are residents of Village Varedarana. Appellant no.1 Sandip Nagare is the Sarpanch of the Village Panchayat whereas respondent no.2 Mangala Pawar is a member of the Gram Panchayat. The incident allegedly took place in the Gram Sabha convened on 26th April 2018. Appellant no.1 Sandip Nagare, Sarpanch, lodged report in respect of the incident on 26th April 2018 itself, which has resulted in registration of Crime No.I- 36 of 2018 for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code against respondent no.2 Mangala Pawar and others. Averments in this FIR are to the effect that when proceedings of the Gram Sabha were conducted, respondent no.2/ First Informant Mangala Pawar questioned the Sarpanch by saying that there is illicit transport of sand from Godavari river and the Sarpanch is involved in this theft of sand. Appellant/accused no.1 Sandip Nagare, Sarpanch, further averred in this FIR that then being infuriated, Shantaram Pawar (husband of