Allowed

Anil Shantaram Teja v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC26 Feb 2020APEAL/125/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against the rejection of a pre-arrest bail application, quashing the Sessions Judge's order that barred anticipatory bail powers. The Court found the bar under the SC/ST Act inapplicable as the facts did not clearly establish a caste atrocity case.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to the appellant upon execution of a Surety Bond of Rs. 20,000/- with sureties, subject to conditions on cooperation and non-influence of witnesses.

Anil Shantaram Teja Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

125-19-Apeal=.doc

¶2

Uday S. Jagtap

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 125 OF 2019

Anil Shantaram Teja

.. Appellant

v/s.

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

¶9

.. Respondents

¶10

Mr. Shubham Kanade i/b Mr. S.R. Ganbavale for the appellant Mr. A.A. Palkar, APP for respondent – State

¶11

CORAM : PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.

¶12

RESERVED ON : 24^th JANUARY, 2020

¶13

PRONOUNCED ON : 26^th FEBRUARY, 2020

¶14

P.C.

¶15

This is an appeal under Section 14A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against an order dated 14.01.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Malegaon by which the application for pre-arrest bail of the appellant came to be rejected.

¶16

The appellant has been charged by the Malegaon Taluka Police

¶17

Station of the offences punishable under Sections 142, 144, 447, 194, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2) (va) of the

1 of 7

125-19-Apeal=.doc

Uday S. Jagtap

S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

¶22

In short, it is the case of the prosecution that the respondent no.2 and the first informant are residents of village Jatpade, Tal. Malgeon, Dist. Nashik. The first informant is an agriculturist by profession. On 13^th December, 2018, he had lodged a report against the appellant with Malegaon Police Station alleging that the applicant with other accused, in furtherance of their common intention, abused the informant on his caste by saying “aamhi tuzhe taar compound todun nele tari tu sudharla naahi, aata tuzhi gay naahi, tu mahar jaticha aahe, khalchya jaticha aahe, tyapramanech raha, tuzhe jagane mushkil karun takto”, etc. They also abused him in a filthy language and again threatened him of dire consequences. It is alleged that the accused had already uprooted his wire fencing. The incident is said to have occurred on 12^th August, 2018.

¶23

After recording the First Information Report, the Investigating Officer visited the scene of occurrence and drew a spot panchanama in the presence of two panch witnesses. It reveals from the record that the Investigating Officer had also recorded the statements of the

2 of 7

125-19-Apeal=.doc

Uday S. Jagtap

witnesses. He collected the caste certificates of the accused and the informant.

¶28

The appellant moved an application under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, after hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant and the prosecution, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, by the impugned order, rejected the application by observing that a case under the S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been prima facie made out against the applicant and, therefore, he could not exercise the powers under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

¶29

Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. At the outset, it is contended that the incident in question alleged to have occurred on 12.08.2018 however, the First Information Report came to be lodged on 13.12.2018. There is an inordinate delay of 4 months about which, according to the learned Counsel, there is no explanation. The second limb of argument is that the incident in question occurred in a place which was not within the public view. The third limb of argument is that it is an outcome of a civil dispute

3 of 7

125-19-Apeal=.doc

Uday S. Jagtap

between the informant on one side and the appellant on the other. The learned Counsel for the appellant has drawn my attention to an order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer in respect of Gat No. 430/3 by which the Sub-Divisional Officer directed to clear the obstructions. It is submitted that there is no mention of Gat number in the first information report.

¶34

On the other hand, learned APP drew my attention to the statements of one Prakash Kshirsagar and Raghunath Ahire and submitted that the appeal is not tenable.

¶35

The first and foremost thing is that prima facie it seems to be a Civil dispute as Exh.‘D’ (page no.26) of the appeal memo indicates that the Sub Divisional Officer, Malgaon, Nashik by his order dated 14.09.2018 granted the application of the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Nimbayati, Tal, Malgegaon, Dist. Nashik and directed the respondent / informant namely, Narendra Jagtap to clear the obstructions in his Gat No.430/3. Further, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nashik in Revision No. 99 of 2018 preferred under Section 23 of the Mamlatdar’s Court Act, 1906, reiterated the earlier order inter

4 of 7

125-19-Apeal=.doc

Uday S. Jagtap

alia directing Narendra Jagtap and Chandrakala Kashinath Shevale to clear the obstructions in Gat No.430/3 and to restore the way.

¶40

Interestingly, the first information report does not indicate Gat number of any of the parties. Secondly, there is no explanation for the delay of 4 months in lodging the first information report. Thirdly, the statement of one Walmik Ananda Jagtap, who appears to be a person belonging to Scheduled Caste, reveals that on 12.08.2018 he was present near the place of incident and noticed verbal duel between the appellant and the other accused on one hand and the respondent no.2 on the other hand. He stated that there was neither abuses on caste by the appellant and others nor there was any fight between them. It appears from his statement that there has been a kaccha road way joining to the field of the informant Narendra Jagtap. However, he presumed that it was going through his field and, therefore, there were quarrels between him and villagers, intermittently.

¶41

Similar are the statements of the other witnesses namely; Laxman P. Pawar, Supadu N. Borse, Sanjay K. Shewale and Abdul

5 of 7

125-19-Apeal=.doc

Uday S. Jagtap

Rehman Mehmud Deshmukh. However, one Prakash Kshirsagar who was also an eye-witness to the incident stated before the police that somebody from the crowd had shouted “ye mahardya” that itself is not sufficient to attract the provisions of the S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act qua the appellant.

¶46

Thus, the complaint and the statements do not make out a prima facie case for applicability of the provisions of the S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and, therefore, bar created under Section 18 and 18A(i) of the Act shall not apply. The impugned order is incorrect and hence, it is quashed and set aside.

¶47

ORDER

¶48

(i) The appeal is allowed.

¶49

(ii) In the event of arrest of the appellant in C.R. No. I- 310 of 2018 registered with Malegaon Taluka Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 447, 194, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(2)(va) of the S.C. and S.T. ( Prevention of Atrocities ) Act, he be released on executing a P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/-

6 of 7

125-19-Apeal=.doc

Uday S. Jagtap

with one or two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction

¶54

of the Additional Sessions Judge, Malegaon.

¶55