Dismissed

The State of Maharashtra v. Mangal Tukaram Patil and Anr.

Bombay HC4 Mar 2019APEAL/403/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Special Appeal challenged the Special Judge's order granting anticipatory bail, arguing a statutory bar under the Atrocities Act. The Court reviewed whether the offence occurred 'within public view' as required by law. Finding the FIR lacked averments of independent witnesses or caste status, the Court held the bail order was legal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal challenging the anticipatory bail order is dismissed.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Mangal… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

15.APEAL(ST)203.19.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL (ST) NO.203 OF 2019

¶5

The State of Maharashtra

¶6

… Appellant

¶7

V/s.

¶8

Mangal Tukaram Patil & Anr.

¶9

... Respondents

¶10

Mr. S.V. Gavand, APP for the Appellant/State.

¶11

Mr. Aniket Nikam, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶12

CORAM : A.M.BADAR, J.

¶13

DATED : 4^th MARCH 2019

¶14

ORAL JUDGMENT:

¶15

Mr. Nikam, the learned Counsel waives notice for

¶16

respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶17

Heard.

¶18

Admit.

¶19

Heard forthwith considering the fact that the appeal is challenging the impugned order dated 14^th December 2018 passed

¶20

by the learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli in Criminal Misc. Application No.1177 of 2018, thereby

¶21

1/5

¶22

Aarti Palkar

¶23

15.APEAL(ST)203.19.doc

¶24

granting pre-arrest bail to the respondents in Crime No.48 of 2018 registered against them at the instance of Seema Dahale for offence punishable under Section 3(1)(r) and (s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'Atrocities Act' for the sake of brevity) as well as under Section 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 and under Sections 436 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶25

Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondent/State. He vehemently argued that in view of bar of Section 18 as well as 18A of the Atrocities Act, the learned Special Judge ought not to have granted anticipatory bail to the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Offence of atrocity is clearly made out. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that statements of Tanaji Dahale, Rekha Mane, Arun Dahale, Shital Dahale shows that the offence took place within public view.

¶26

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents

¶27

2/5

¶28

Aarti Palkar

¶29

15.APEAL(ST)203.19.doc

¶30

submitted that there was no public witness to the alleged incident apart from the fact that the FIR as well as papers of investigation are not showing averments that the offence took place in a place within public view.

¶31

I have considered the submissions so advanced and perused papers of investigation. Intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view is an offence of atrocity. Similarly, abusing any member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view is also an offence of atrocity. However, such offence is required to be committed in presence of or in the proximity of at least one independent person. Following are the observations of this Court in the matter of Balu s/o Bajirao Galande v. State of Maharashtra¹ .

¶32

“Considering the judicial pronouncements on the subject, the expression within public view must be construed to mean that the insult or humiliation must take place in the

¶33

1 2006 6 AIR (Bom.)(R) 251

¶34

3/5

¶35

Aarti Palkar

¶36

15.APEAL(ST)203.19.doc

¶37

presence of or in the proximity of at lest one independent person. The test of audibility and visibility can be taken to have been satisfied if an independent person is actually present or is at a place where the utterances are clearly audible and reaches the scene of occurrence while the incident is still in progress.”

¶38

Moreover, it is also required to be stated in the FIR in the light of provisions of Section 3 of the Atrocities Act that the accused/appellants are not members of the scheduled caste or scheduled tribe.

¶39

Viewed from this angle, averments of First

¶40

Informant/Seema Dahale is to the effect that on 23^rd October 2018 co-accused Pushpa Gavade and others took photograph of the disputed land and then they went in front of house of respondents/accused. Thereafter, respondents gave casteist abuses and insulted them. Averments in the FIR does not show that this incident took place in presence of some independent person. Witnesses whose statements are recorded by the Investigating Officer are near relatives of the first informant. The

¶41

Aarti Palkar

¶42

15.APEAL(ST)203.19.doc

¶43

FIR is also not containing averment that the respondents are not belonging to either Scheduled Caste or Schedule Tribe.

¶44

In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge granting anticipatory bail to the respondents by holding that bar of Section 18 or 18A of the Atrocities Act is not applicable to the case in hand is either perverse or illegal.

¶45

The appeal is devoid of merit and as such the order:

¶46

ORDER

¶47

The appeal is dismissed.

¶48

(A.M.BADAR J.)

¶49

5/5

¶50

Aarti Palkar

The State of Maharashtra v. Mangal Tukaram Patil and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Mangal Tukaram Patil and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Alpesh Dattatraya Desle and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Tukaram Kerba Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra

Oovesh Sarabhai @ Oovesh Sara Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Pradeep Ramnayan Yadav Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Shobha Ganpati Gavade

The State of Maharashtra Vs Shobha Ganpati Gavade