Allowed

Satish Balkrishna Bhise and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC26 Mar 2010APPLN/680/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to two applicants accused under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The court held that the alleged provisions did not apply as the complainant's representation was accepted and adverse remarks removed, meaning no injury or public humiliation occurred.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed of with a direction to release applicants on bail in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each with one surety if arrested.

Satish Balkrishna Bhise and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.680 OF 2010

¶4

Satish Balkrishna Bhise and anr...Applicants.
Vs.

¶5

The State of Maharashtra.

¶6

..Respondent.

¶7

Mr.S. B. Shetye for the Applicants.
Mrs. A.A. Mane, APP. For the State.

¶8

CORAM : R.S. MOHITE, J.
 DATE : 26th March, 2010

¶9

PC :

¶10

1This is an application for grant of

¶11

anticipatory bail. The applicants are shown as an
accused in C. R. No.3122/2009 registered by Karad

¶12

Shahar Polic Station on the complaint of one

¶13

Bhaskar K. Gaikwad. The said complaint has been
filed on 4.12.2009. On the basis of the said

¶14

complaint police have registered an offence U/s.

¶15

3(i)(ix) and 3(i)(x) read with 3 (ii) 7 of the
S.C.S.T. Act. I have perused the complaint. The
complaint is against applicant No.1 who is the

¶16

¶17

Principal of the Government Pharmacy College, Karad
and applicant No.2 who is the Superintendent of the

¶18

said college. At the relevant time, the

¶19

complainant was working in the said college as a
Store Keeper. Allegation is that some adverse
remarks were passed by two applicants in his
Confidential report by making false allegations and
sent for confirmation to the Joint Director of

¶20

Technical Education. It is contended that the
complainant made a representation to the Joint
Director of Technical Education and by his letter

¶21

dated 29.4.2009 the representation of the

¶22

complainant was accepted and the suggested adverse
remarks in the said Confidential reports were
expunged. The police have invoked Section 3(1)(ix)
and 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 which have been invoked by the police are as
under.

¶23

�(ix) gives any false or frivolous

¶24

information to any public servant and thereby cause

¶25

¶26

such public servant to use his lawful power to the
injury or annoyance of a member of a Scheduled
Caste or a Scheduled Tribe;

¶27

(x) intentionally insults or intimidates

¶28

with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled
Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within
public view;�

¶29

In so far as Section 3(1)(x) is concerned,
it cannot be said that any act of intentionally
insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate
has taken place in public view. The said provision
does not apply to the facts of the present case.

¶30

In so far as sub clause (ix) of Section 3
is concerned, the public servant to whom the
alleged false or frivolous information is given has
not used his lawful power to cause any injury or
annoyance.

¶31

2On the contrary, the authority has directed
to remove the suggested adverse remarks. In the
circumstances, in my view, this is a case where the

¶32

¶33

aforesaid provisions prima facie do not apply. In
this view of the matter, I am inclined to grant

¶34

anticipatory bail to the applicants. It is

¶35

therefore, directed that in the event of their
arrest in C.R.No.3122/2009, the applicants may be
released on bail in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each
with one surety each in the like amount subject to
the condition that they will remain present as and
when called by the Investigating officer in
writing. Application is disposed off.

¶36

( R.S. MOHITE, J.)

Satish Balkrishna Bhise and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Balkrishna Bhise and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abhiman Sarjerao Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kiran Bhaskar Kashid Vs the State of Maharashtra

Riyaz Ayyaz Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Subhash Bapu Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Gajanan Sahebrao Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bhalchandra Mahadeo Yelpale Vs the State of Maharashtra