Allowed

Hiralal Chedilal Gupta and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC15 Oct 2018APEAL/300/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal against the rejection of an anticipatory bail application. The court held that the impugned order was incorrect because the FIR did not attract any offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 after its 2016 amendment.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting anticipatory bail is quashed; the application for anticipatory bail and release on bail are allowed.

Hiralal Chedilal Gupta and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

17-APPEAL-300-2018.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.300 OF 2018

¶5

1) HIRALAL CHEDILAL GUPTA ) ) 2) NAGINDEVI HIRALAL GUPTA ) ) 3) DILIP HIRALAL GUPTA )...APPLELLANTS

¶6

V/s.

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. )...RESPONDENTS

¶8

Mr.Sandeep Mishra a/w. Mr.Prakash Mishra, Advocate for the Appellants.

¶9

Mr.P.H.Gaikwad-Patil, APP for the Respondent – State.

¶10

None for Respondent No.2.

¶11

CORAM : A. M. BADAR, J. DATE : 15^th OCTOBER 2018

¶12

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶13

1 None for respondent no.2, despite service.

¶14

avk 1/5

¶15

17-APPEAL-300-2018.doc

¶16

2 Heard. Admit. Heard forthwith considering the fact

¶17

that this is an appeal challenging rejection of the application for anticipatory bail filed by the appellants/accused, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, on 16^th March 2018.

¶18

3 The learned counsel for the appellants/accused argued that the application is by in-laws of the First Informant and perusal of the First Information Report (FIR) lodged by respondent no.2 Sangeeta is not reflecting commission of any offence punishable under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, by the appellants/accused.

¶19

4 The learned APP argues that specific allegations are made against the appellants/accused by the First Informant.

¶20

5 I have perused the FIR lodged by Sangeeta M. Gupta. On the basis of that FIR, Police Station Shahunagar, Mumbai, has registered offence punishable under Sections 498A, 406, 354, 504,

¶21

avk 2/5

¶22

17-APPEAL-300-2018.doc

¶23

323 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under 3(1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶24

6 Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is no more in statute book after amendment which came into effect from 26^th January 2016. The learned APP is not in a position to explain how Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is made applicable in the instant case, when the First Information Report (FIR) is lodged on 28^th February 2018.

¶25

7 After amendment of the Scheduled Castes and

¶26

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 3(1)(r) thereof becomes relevant and it corresponds to erstwhile Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Section 3(1)(r) deals with punishment for intentional insulting or intimidation with intent to

¶27

avk 3/5

¶28

17-APPEAL-300-2018.doc

¶29

humiliate a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, in any place within public view. The FIR lodged by the respondent no.2 does not attract the offence of atrocity even prescribed by Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶30

8 In this view of the matter, the learned trial court erred in rejecting the application for anticipatory bail moved by the appellants/accused relying on statutory bar engrafted by Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The impugned order, as such, cannot be sustained. Therefore, the order :

¶31

ORDER

¶32

i) The appeal is allowed.

¶33

ii) The impugned order dated 16^th March 2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, in Criminal Anticipatory Bail Application No.459 of 2018 is quashed and set aside.

¶34

avk 4/5

¶35

17-APPEAL-300-2018.doc

¶36

iii) The application for anticipatory bail in Crime No.58 of 2018 registered with Shahu Nagar Police Station moved by the appellants/accused is allowed.

¶37

iv) In the event of arrest of the appellants/accused in Crime No.58 of 2018 registered with Shahu Nagar Police Station, the appellants/accused be released on bail on their executing P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- each, and on furnishing surety in like amount, by each of them.

¶38

v) The appellants/accused shall not make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the accusation against him so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any Police officer.

¶39

vi) The application is disposed off.

¶40

(A. M. BADAR, J.)

¶41

avk 5/5

Hiralal Chedilal Gupta and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hiralal Chedilal Gupta and Ors. 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

The Sanjivani Gramin Baigarsheti Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vaishali Vidhyadhar Sarang Vs Sandhya Mahendra Naik and Anr.

Dattatray Vitthalrao Wayal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Govind Gopal Taware and Ors.

Mr. Popat Maruti Ghavant Vs Shivlal Dhondiba Dhanukade and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Mithun Balaso Sawant and Anr.