Allowed

Subhash Shamraoji Kadam v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Bombay HC27 Mar 2012APPLN/1196/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order adjudicated an application for anticipatory bail. The court granted bail holding that Section 18 of the Atrocities Act does not bar the application since the incident allegedly occurred in private, lacking the essential public element under Section 3(i)(x) of the Atrocities Act.

What did the court decide?

Bail application allowed; personal bond of Rs. 5,000/-.

Subhash Shamraoji Kadam Vs the State of Mah and Anr. — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

Cri.appl.1196 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1196 OF 2012

¶5

Subhash S/o.Shamraoji Kadam, Age-56 years, Occu-Agriculturist and social work, R/o.Limbgaon, Tq. and Dist.Nanded, At present residing at Chhatrapati Nagar, Nanded

¶6

APPLICANT

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

The State of Maharashtra

¶9

Through Police Inspector, Police Station, Limbgaon, Tq. and Dist. Nanded

¶10

The District Superintendent of Police,

¶11

Nanded, Dist.Nanded

¶12

RESPONDENTS

¶13

Mr.P.R.Patil h/f. Mr.V.S.Panpatte, learned advocate for the applicant. Mr.D.R.Kale, learned A.P.P. for respondent/State. Mr.G.G.Suryawanshi, learned advocate for the original complainant.

¶14

(CORAM : A.H.JOSHI, J.)

¶15

DATE : 27/03/2012

¶16

PER COURT :

¶17

This is an application for anticipatory bail.

¶18

Crime No.1/2012 has been registered u/s.3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and u/s. 448, 323, 506 of IPC with Limbgaon Police Station, Tq. and Dist. Nanded.

¶19

Heard parties. Perused the case diary.

¶20

Learned advocate Mr.Suryawanshi, appearing for the original complainant, representing to assist the prosecution, has argued to oppose the

¶21

¶22

Cri.appl.1196 of 2012

¶23

bail application. The thrust of opposition is based on bar created by section 18 of the Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, which excludes application of Section 438 of the Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

¶24

After perusal of FIR and spot panchnama, it reveals that the incident has occurred at the residence of the informant. On this very fact, it is obvious that the incident had not occurred in public view., which is the essential element of attracting section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act

¶25

Perusal of statement of the informant also fails to disclose the fact that the incident had occurred in public view.

¶26

On the sole ground, the applicability of section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, is on the face of it, an act vindicative in nature. Truth of the incident, whether abusing occurred at all, will be taken care of in the investigation. At this stage, in the background that the complainant has exerted to artificially bring into play the provisions of the Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, by itself will carve out an exception to the exclusion of section 438 of IPC.

¶27

In the result, application succeeds.

¶28

Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘B;. The personal bond and solvent surety shall be in a sum of Rs.5,000/-.

¶29

(A.H.JOSHI, J.)

¶30

khs/MARCH 2012/1196-12

Subhash Shamraoji Kadam v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash Shamraoji Kadam v. the State of Mah and Anr.

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

The State of Mah Vs Shaharukh Hamid Khan and Anr.

Rizwan Rashid Pathan Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Sarjerao Kisan Kale and Anr. Vs the State of Mah

Swapnil Machindra Kale Vs the State of Mah

Fulchand Dagdu Kamble Vs the State of Mah

Pravin Brahmadev Shinde Vs the State of Mah