Dismissed

Shivappa Huchappa Tavanshi v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC24 Sept 2012ABA/833/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected an application for anticipatory bail. The court held that Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act bars the use of anticipatory bail provisions on investments at the investigation stage. The court noted that conviction of an offence under the Act cannot be determined solely on the basis of the FIR or witness statements during in

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC is rejected.

Shivappa Huchappa Tavanshi Vs the State of Maharashtra — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

ABA 833-12.odt

¶2

Anand

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.833 OF 2012

¶5

Shivappa Huchappa Tavanshi .Applicant

¶6

V/s.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra .Respondent

¶8

Mr.Umesh R. Mankapure, Advocate, for the Applicant Mr.J.P.Kharge, APP, for the Respondent - State

¶9

CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 24TH SEPTEMBER, 2012

¶10

P.C.

¶11

. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶12

This is an application for anticipatory bail by a person, who apprehends arrest in connection with C.R.No.69 of 2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 149, 307, 504 of the Indian Penal Code, under Sections 3, 25(1)(A) of the Arms Act and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and

¶13

ABA 833-12.odt

¶14

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

¶15

1989 (Hereinafter referred to as “S.C.S.T.Act”). The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is from the same village. In the FIR, applicant's name was not mentioned. He submitted that applicant's complicity was indicated in a supplementary statement recorded two days after the incident. According to the

¶16

learned counsel for the applicant, the allegations are baseless and all the persons participating in the assault including the applicant are alleged to have referred to the caste of the first informant stating that the first informant, belongs to 'Chambhar' caste, &

¶17

should be killed. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in these circumstances, mere reference to the caste of the applicant would not be sufficient to invoke provisions of

¶18

the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in order to deny anticipatory bail to the applicant. For

¶19

Page 2 of 8

¶20

ABA 833-12.odt

¶21

this purpose, he relied on Judgment of this Court in Shashikant Ramhari Tambe & ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra , reported in 2008 ALL MR (Cri.) 2132, wherein, there was a delay of about a week in lodging FIR. In the second Judgment of Delhi High Court in Mukesh Kumar Saini Vs. State (Delhi Administration) , reported in 2002 ALL MR (Cri.) 41 , it was observed that there must be specific accusation alleged against each of the accused in order to attract provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 & that Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be pressed into service. The learned counsel for the applicant relied on Judgment of this Court in Ramchandra Govindrao Watkar and another Vs. State of Maharashtra , reported in 1995(2) Mh.L.J. 669 where the Court observed that FIR as

¶22

well as statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and available material in

¶23

case diary ex facie did not disclose the

¶24

Page 3 of 8

¶25

ABA 833-12.odt

¶26

ingredients constituting offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and therefore, provisions of Section 18 of the Act

¶27

barring invocation of the jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not attracted. The learned counsel for the applicant relied on Judgment of this Court in

¶28

Sugdeo Ramchandra Tayade Vs. State of Maharashtra , reported in 1994 CRI.L.J. 2150 which was, in fact, an appeal against conviction. In Bai @ Laxmibai w/o. Nivrutti Poul & ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra , reported in 2001 ALL MR (Cri.) 219 on which the learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance, this Court was considering an application for quashing the FIR. Amongst other things, the Court observed that the incident ought to occur

¶29

in a public view in order to attract the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. In

¶30

Page 4 of 8

¶31

ABA 833-12.odt

¶32

Somesh Das Vs. State of Chhattisgarh , reported in 2004 CRI.L.J.680 , High Court of Chhattisgarh held that if the complaint is found to be false, anticipatory bail cannot be denied to accused, even if the offence registered was one punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the

¶33

S.C.S.T.Act. In Phulsingh Vs. State of Madhya

¶34

Pradesh , reported in 1991 CRI.L.J.2954 , the High

¶35

Court of Madhya Pradesh held that merely referring a person by name of his caste did not constitute an offence punishable under Section

¶36

7(1)(d) of the Civil Rights Act, 1964. In Suresh Kumar Vs. State , reported in

¶37

1999(1)Crimes 636 , High Court of Madhya Pradesh

¶38

was considering an offence punishable under

¶39

Section 3(1)(x) of the S.C.S.T.Act & under Sections 294 & 341 of the Indian Penal Code and observed that no prima facie material was available to raise suspicion of commission of any offence under the Act, & so the person concerned was entitled to anticipatory bail. In

¶40

Page 5 of 8

¶41

ABA 833-12.odt

¶42

Ashok Lakhaji Halmare Vs. State of Maharashtra &

¶43

anr. , reported in 2005 ALL MR (Cri.) 2489 , this Court was considering question of quashing of proceedings in Special Criminal Case No.28 of 2001 before the Special Judge, Bhandara and in that context observed that every quarrel or altercation between a member of Higher caste and that of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

¶44

would not ipso facto constitute acts of commission of offence which are capable of cognizance under the Scheduled Castes and

¶45

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Protection of Civil Rights Act as the case

¶46

may be. In Gowardhan s/o. Rambhau Mohite Vs. State of Maharashtra , reported in 2005 ALL MR (Cri.) 1223 , this Court was considering an appeal against conviction for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the

¶47

S.C.S.T.Act and in that context, considered the question of delay in communicating the incident to the police. The Court also found that bare

¶48

Page 6 of 8

¶49

ABA 833-12.odt

¶50

words referring to the caste had been used by the accused.

¶51

observations made in these Judgments. When

¶52

legislature has provided by enacting Section 18

¶53

of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

¶54

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 , that provisions of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would not apply, it would not

¶55

be permissible for Courts by observing at the

¶56

stage of investigation itself if an offence is

¶57

made out or not on the basis of what is stated

¶58

in the FIR or a statement by a witness. FIR

¶59

merely marks the commencement of investigation

¶60

and cannot be an encyclopedia marking the outer boundaries of the investigation. Further, whether the particulars of utterance amount to

¶61

or offence under the Act would have to be

¶62

considered after the investigation is over in the light of the entire material that may be

¶63

Page 7 of 8

¶64

ABA 833-12.odt

¶65

collected by the investigating officer. Therefore, in my view, none of the Judgments relied on by the learned counsel would warrant that the bar enacted under Section 18 of the Act should be overlooked and applicant be admitted to anticipatory bail.

¶66

Criminal Application stands rejected.

¶67

Page 8 of 8

Shivappa Huchappa Tavanshi v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivappa Huchappa Tavanshi 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chetan Kumar Sanghvi Vs Aparna Chetan Sanghvi and Anr.

Jijabai Baban Malunjkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

M. M. Prabhakar v. Prasad and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ramjan Savid Shaikh Vs State of Maharashtra

Umrao Tanaji Pawar Alias Jagdale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Devendra Kumar Zialal Sukhchand Jaiswal and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra