Decided on October 20,2020

RAJESH Appellant


- (1.) Present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act , 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Atrocities Act') to challenge the order of rejection of pre-arrest bail application i.e. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.300 of 2020 filed by the present appellant before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Majalgaon which came to be rejected on 11-09-2020. The appellant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.191 of 2020 dated 25-08-2019 registered with Wadwani Police Station, Dist. Beed for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 427, 452, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(va) of the Atrocities Act.
(2.) Heard learned Advocate Mr. A. V. Lavte holding for Mr. S. J. Salunke for appellant, learned APP Mr. S. W. Munde for respondent No.1 - State and learned Advocate Mr. Akshay Kulkarni (appointed) for respondent No.2.
(3.) It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the appellant that perusal of the FIR would show that the place of offence where the utterances of abuses in the name of caste were inside the house that too by accused No.1, therefore, prima facie offence under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Atrocities Act are not attracted towards the present appellant, who is original accused No.7. Further, as regards the offence under Section 3(2)(va) of the Atrocities Act is concerned, the FIR shows that there was no quantified damage. The allegation is that the articles in the house of the accused persons were scattered and the Mangalsutra of the wife of the informant and his sister-in-law is missing somewhere. It cannot be attributed to the present appellant and, therefore, prima facie case is not made out under that Section also. The learned Special judge failed to consider these aspects and wrongly held that there is bar under Section 18 of the Atrocities Act. As regards the offences under Indian Penal Code are concerned, the physical custody of the appellant is not required. The learned Advocate for the appellant, therefore, prayed for allowing the appeal and release of the appellant on anticipatory bail.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.