Allowed

Vaijnath Pandit Gapat and Ors. v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC22 Nov 2012APPLN/3664/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a criminal application for anticipatory bail regarding caste-related allegations. While noting a statutory bar under Section 18, the judge found no need for custodial interrogation for two applicants as the incident occurred in a private field without specific details linking them to words used. Bail was granted with location restrictions.

What did the court decide?

Application of applicants 2 and 3 allowed; interim protection made absolute with condition not to enter village Hadongri or influence witnesses.

Vaijnath Pandit Gapat and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors. — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

(1) Cri. Appln. 3664-2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3664 OF 2012

¶4

1. Shri Vaijnath S/o Pandit Gapat

¶5

2. Shri Sandipan S/o Pandit Gapat

¶6

3. Shri Navnath S/o Jagannath Gapat

¶7

Applicants

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Maharashtra and ors. Respondents

¶10

Mr. S.B. Talekar, Advocate and Mr. U.R. Awate, Advocate for the
Applicants.

¶11

Mr. R.P. Phatke, A.P.P. for the Respondent-State.

¶12

Ms. Nima Suryawanshi, Advocate for respondent no.3.

¶13

CORAM : M. T. JOSHI, J.
DATED : 22ND NOVEMBER, 2012

¶14

ORAL ORDER:

¶15

1.Vakalatnama filed by respondent no.3 is
accepted. Heard both sides.

¶16

2.The present applicants who were apprehending
arrest at the hands of Bhoom Police Station, Dist.
Osmanabad in crime no. 77 of 2012 for the offences
punishable under section 325, 323, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of the
I.P.C. and under section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes

¶17

and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
have filed the present application for their release on
anticipatory bail.

¶18

3.During the pendency of the present application,

¶19

interim protection was granted by the learned Single Judge

¶20

(2) Cri. Appln. 3664-2012

¶21

of this Court vide order dated 16.8.2012 to applicant
nos.2 and 3. During the pendency of the present
application, applicant no.1 is already arrested by the
I.O. and thereafter released by the Court on bail.
Therefore, the application as regards applicant no.1 has
become infructuous.

¶22

4.The complaint is filed by one Kalyan Datta Kale,
who belongs to Pardhi caste. The FIR alleges that all the
applicants are of Maratha caste. It is alleged that on
29.7.2012 in the morning while the complainant with his
wife who are presently residing at Hadongri, Tq. Bhoom
took the cattles in the field of the present applicants
for the purposes of grazing. In the circumstances, all
the applicants abused the complainant over his caste by
insulting him by uttering the words in that regard.
During the incident, applicant no.1 Vaijnath had assaulted
with a wooden club due to which the left hand of the
complainant suffered fracture. All of them abused the
complainant over his caste and in the circumstances, the
complaint came to be filed.

¶23

5.Learned counsel for the applicants Mr. Talekar
submits that despite the bar provided by section 18 of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, the complaint itself would show that the

¶24

(3) Cri. Appln. 3664-2012

¶25

incident has not occurred in a public view. Further,
there are vague allegations that all the present three
applicants had abused the complainant over his caste,
without specifying as to whom of the present applicants
has uttered which words. He further submits that the
complainant is a known criminal and many cases are pending
against him which is bear out by the statement by the P.I.
of Police station, Bhoom at Exhibit "X". He further
submits that there is improbability and inherent falsity
in the FIR as while the allegations are that the incident
has occurred in the field of the applicants of village
Dindori, the panchanama of the spot of occurrence that is
recorded on the pointing by the complainant is of village
Hadongri. In the circumstances, he submits that the
applicants no. 2 and 3 be released on anticipatory bail.

¶26

6.On the other hand, learned A.P.P. as well as the
learned counsel for the complainant i.e. respondent no.3
submits that the injury certificate which would show that
the complainant has suffered a fracture to his ulna would
corroborate the FIR. Further at this stage, the Court
need not go into the merit of the case, to find out as to
whether the story is improbable or not. Further, there is

¶27

a bar provided by section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short
"the Act") for grant of anticipatory bail in such matters.

¶28

(4) Cri. Appln. 3664-2012

¶29

Further, the judgment delivered by this Court in Criminal
Application no.3541 of 2012 dated 24.8.2012 is relied to
show that in view of the bar as provided by section 18 of
the Act, anticipatory bail cannot be granted.

¶30

7.In the present case, the allegations are that

¶31

the complainant was insulted over his caste by the
complainant in their own field and not in public view.
Further, there are no specific allegations as to whom of
the applicants has insulted with specific words to the
complainant. Besides this, the allegations would show
that the applicant no.1 has caused fracture to the ulna of
the complainant who is already arrested by the I.O. In
view of this material, though there is no need to find out
as to whether the offence under section 3(1)(x) of the Act
is made out against all the applicants or not, considering
the overall facts, in my view, the custodial interrogation
of the applicants 2 and 3 is not required.

¶32

8.In the circumstances, the Application of

¶33

applicant no.1 is disposed of as being infructuous.
Application of applicant nos.2 and 3 is allowed. Interim
protection granted to the applicant nos.2 and 3 vide order
dated 16.8.2012 is hereby made absolute on the same terms

¶34

and conditions, with additional condition that the
applicant nos.2 and 3 shall not enter the territorial

¶35

(5) Cri. Appln. 3664-2012

¶36

limits of village Hadongri till the filing of the
chargesheet and shall not in any way try to influence the
prosecutionwitnesses.Applicationdisposedof

¶37

accordingly.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

 [M. T. JOSHI, J.]

¶40

arp/

Vaijnath Pandit Gapat and Ors. v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vaijnath Pandit Gapat and Ors. v. the State of Mah and Ors.

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

Pradip Ratan Dhangar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Manohar Mahadeo Shinde Vs the State of Mah

The State of Mah Vs Dnyandeo Bondaru Patil and Anr.

Patilba Mahadeo Pingle Vs the State of Mah

Rajanikant Ramdas Narwade Vs the State of Mah

Suresh Yashwant Sonawane Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Ors.