Allowed

Kayyum Dawood Khan v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC14 Dec 2021APEAL/411/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal under Section 14A(1) of the SCST Act, the single judge held that since the First Information Report did not disclose an offence under the Act, as the dispute was primarily civil, Section 18 and 18A did not apply, and the appeal was allowed, releasing the appellant on bail.

What did the court decide?

Appellant released on executing PR bond of Rs.25,000 with sureties and ordered to join investigation.

Kayyum Dawood Khan Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

Digitally signed by SHAMBHAVI SHAMBHAVI NILESH NILESH SHIVGAN SHIVGAN Date: 2021.12.14 18:53:21 +0530

¶2

14-APEAL-411-2021.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.411 OF 2021

¶5

Kayyum Dawood Khan ...Appellant Vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents

¶6

Mr. B.B.Tiwari i/by Mr. Azimuddin N. Kazi for the Appellant. Smt.S.V.Sonawane, APP for the Respondent-State. Ms. Komal G. Sinha, appointed advocate for R.No.2.

¶7

CORAM : SANDEEP K. SHINDE J. DATE : DECEMBER 14, 2021.

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

It is an appeal under Section 14A(1) of the

¶10

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

¶11

Act, 1989 (‘Act of 1989’ for short).

¶12

2 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, the learned

¶13

prosecutor for the State and Ms. Komal Sinha, advocate (appointed) on behalf of the complainant.

¶14

Shivgan 1/3

¶15

14-APEAL-411-2021.odt

¶16

3 The learned counsel appearing for the complainant

¶17

would rely on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Manju Devi v. Onkarjit Singh Ahluwalia alias Omkarjeet Singh and Ors. (2017) 13 SCC 439 to contend that in view of Section 18 and 18A of the Act of 1989, any person against whom accusation of having committed an offence has been made, provisions of Section 438 of the Code shall not apply. Thus, she would question maintainability of appeal for pre-arrest bail.

¶18

4 Primary evaluation of the First Information Report shows that, if the offence under the Act of 1989 is not made out, bar under section 18 and 18A(2) shall not apply. I have perused the First Information Report. Admittedly, there is a dispute about redevelopment of the building between the complainant and the appellant. Since the matter regarding redevelopment of the property was subject matter of civil dispute, any dispute arising on account of that, would not disclose offence under the Act of 1989, unless the victim is abused, intimidated, only for the reason that he belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.

¶19

Shivgan 2/3

¶20

14-APEAL-411-2021.odt

¶21

5 In consideration of the facts of the case, in my view, no

¶22

offence under the Act of 1989 has been disclosed in the First Information Report. In that view of the matter, appeal is allowed. Hence, the following order;

¶23

ORDER

¶24

(I ) In the event of arrest of the appellant in Crime No. 62 of

¶25

2021 registered with Mumbra Police Station, he shall be released on executing PR bond for the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or more sureties in like sum.

¶26

(ii) Appellant shall join the investigation as and when

¶27

required and shall co-operate in the investigation.

¶28