Allowed

Shaikh Shahin Shaikh Sardar v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC30 Jul 2021APEAL/299/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed criminal appeal for anticipatory bail under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, holding that the statutory bar does not apply and confirming prior ad-interim bail granted to the female appellant.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed and set aside; ad-interim anticipatory bail granted by the order dated 24.06.2021 confirmed with same terms and conditions.

Shaikh Shahin Shaikh Sardar Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.299 OF 2021

¶3

Shaikh Shahin Shaikh Sardar,
Age : 45 years, Occu. Housewife,
R/o Patra Colony, Waluj,
Tq. Gangapur, District Aurangabad

¶4

APPELLANT

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

1. The State of Maharashtra, through Police Station, Waluj, Tq. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad

¶7

2. Shubham Babasaheb Kharat, Age : 24 years, Occu. Driver, R/o Patra Colony, Waluj, Tq. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad

¶8

RESPONDENTS

¶9

Mr. Kachru A. Ingale, Advocate for the appellant
Mrs. G.L. Deshpande, A.P.P. for the respondent/State
Mr. Satish P. Dhoble, Advocate for respondent No.2

¶10

CORAM :MANGESH S. PATIL, J.

¶11

DATE :30.07.2021

¶12

ORAL JUDGMENT:

¶13

Heard.

¶14

2. Admit .

¶15

3. With the consent of learned Advocates for the parties and

¶16

¶17

CRIAPL299-2021

¶18

learned A.P.P., heard finally at the stage of admission.

¶19

4.This is an appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter
referred to as “Atrocities Act”), seeking anticipatory bail in connection with
Crime No. 237 of 2021, registered with Waluj Police Station, District
Aurangabad for the offences punishable under Sections 188, 269, 270, 323,
324, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the
Atrocities Act and Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act.

¶20

5.In nutshell, the allegations, as can be appreciated from the FIR
and the police papers, are to the effect that the informant was opposing
installation of electric supply DP in front of the Budhavihar. The accused
persons, including the appellant were harboring grudge against him because
of such opposition for a public cause. They abused his nephew and
threatened him to tell his uncle not to oppose installation of the DP. When
the informant approached the accused persons for questioning them as to
why they had abused his nephew Aditya, all the accused abused and
assaulted him. The abuses were on cast-line and thereby they insulted him
knowing well that he belongs to Scheduled Caste. They also threatened him
to eliminate. When his mother, sister and sister’s husband tried to intervene,
even they were assaulted. The matter was reported to police and the offence
was registered.

¶21

3 CRIAPL299-2021

¶22

6.I have heard the learned Advocate for the appellant, learned
A.P.P. and learned Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶23

7.Though the appellant has not been specifically named in the FIR
in the strict sense, her description as mother of Abed can be found in the FIR
and therefore, there cannot be any dispute as regards identification.

¶24

8.However, even if the allegations in the FIR and the statements of
the witnesses, particularly Aditya are perused, no specific and exclusive
overtact is attributed to the appellant. Only her presence is being referred
alongwith other accused while the incident was happening. Hurling abuses
much less on caste-lines is not attributed to her.

¶25

9.Since the incident apparently had occurred on the spur of
moment, without there being any premeditation in as much as it is only when
the informant had approached the accused persons, about which they may
not have anticipation, it is certainly doubtful if the offences under the
Atrocities Act can be attributed to the appellant.

¶26

10.Resultantly, there is every room to believe that case of the
appellant is such that the bar under Sections 18 and 18-A of the Atrocities Act
would not come into play as is interpreted by the Supreme Court in the case
of Prathviraj Chauhan Vs. Union of India and others; (2020) 4 SCC 727.

¶27

11. Importantly, the appellant is a woman. She has already been

¶28

CRIAPL299-2021

¶29

¶30

granted ad-interim anticipatory bail by this Court by order dated 24.06.2021.
There are no allegations about she having committed breach of the terms and
conditions. Consequently, the appeal deserves to be allowed.

¶31

12.The appeal is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set

¶32

aside. The ad-interim anticipatory bail granted by the order dated
24.06.2021 stands confirmed with the same terms and conditions.

¶33

[MANGESH S. PATIL]

¶34

JUDGE

¶35

npj/CRIAPL299-2021

Shaikh Shahin Shaikh Sardar v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaikh Shahin Shaikh Sardar v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

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

Yogesh Shivaji Barve Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Babita Angat Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Annasaheb Lahanu Ghuge Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jyoti Kalyan Thakur and Anr. Vs Kalyan Narayansingh Thakur

Sandesh Shivajirao Potdar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Rohit @ Dichya S/O. Nana Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra