PANDHARPUR TALUKA-PS

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.101 OF 2020 1. Gujar Raosaheb Gajare ] Age: 60 Years, Occ: Agri ] 2. Vasant Raosaheb Gajare ] Age: 55 Years, Occ: Agri, ] Both R/o. Shelve, Tal. Pandharpur ] Dist. Solapur. ] Appellants Versus 1. State of Maharashtra ] Through Gramin (Rural) ] Police Station, Pandharpur. ] 2. Ananda Ananta Shinde ] Age. Years, Occ. Service, ] Gramin (Rural) ] Police Station, Pandharpur, ] Dist. Solapur. ] Respondents Mr. Tushar N. Sonawane, for the Appellants. Mr. A.R. Kapadnis, Additional Public Prosecutor, for Respondent-State. Police Head Constable-Mr. R.T. Jadhav, Pandharpur Rural Police Station present. ….. …. CORAM : PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J. DATE : 17TH FEBRUARY, 2020. P.C: Challenge in this appeal is to an order dated 10th December, 2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur by which Criminal Miscellaneous Application bearing No.1343 of 2019 for anticipatory bail preferred by the appellants came to be rejected since the offence under the provisions of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for short 'Atrocity Act') according to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, creates a bar under section 18 of the said Act. The appellants have been booked under sections 143, 147, 149, 353, 332, 323, 504, 506, 188, 229 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C') and under sections 3 (1) (r) (5), 3 (2) (va) of the Atrocity Act. Briefly stated the facts are that on 6th November, 2019 around 1.00 a.m, respondent No.2 who was attached as Head Constable to Pandharpur Police Station had been to the house of the appellants to execute a warrant issued by J.M.F.C, Malshiras. A person sleeping in front of the house, after noticing the Police party, started abusing. Despite informing the appellants that it was a Police party who had been to their house in discharge of their official duties, the appellants created hurdle by raising shouts and, therefore, warrant could not be executed. It is alleged that respondent No.2 belongs to 'Pardhi' community of which the appellants were aware and, therefore, not only they obstructed respondent No.2 from performing his public duty but they also abused on his caste by saying; " pardhya tula baghato, amhas pakdun neto ka, tuzya viruddha me khota gunha dakhal karto, sarkari gadi jalun takto, tuzi nokrihi ghalvito" It is further alleged that one of accused grabbed the uniform of respondent No.2. Subsequently, the accused made their escape good. The learned Additional Sessions Judge by the impugned order observed that, prima facie, the allegations of commission of offence under the Atrocities Act are made out from F.I.R since respondent No.2 was abused on his caste by the accused who knew respondent No.2 being a member of Pardhi community. Thus, it is observed that there is bar under section 18 and, therefore, the application under section 438 cannot be entertained. This appeal is already covered with an earlier judgment and order passed by this Court. This Court in Criminal Appeal No.1752 of 2019 arising out of the same crime, by a judgment and order dated 10th January, 2020 allowed the appeal of one of the accused Mohan Pandurang Gajare. It is apparent from the record that there is nothing to indicate that the appellants do not belong to schedule caste or schedule tribe communities. It is equally important to note that the incident alleged to have been occurred around 1.00 a.m within the premises of the house of the appellants and, therefore, it cannot be termed to be a place within public view. The most important aspect is that respondent No.2 had been to the house of the appellants to execute a warrant in discharge of his official duty and, therefore, there is no question of the appellants extending threats to respondent No.2 or to influence him in any manner whatsoever. There is even no question of respondent No.2 getting cowed down by the appellants. Even if it is presumed for the sake of arguments that the appellants abused respondent No.2 on his caste by using word ' Pardhi' , as already stated, there is nothing on record to show that the appellants themselves belong to higher caste. If respondent No.2 had been to execute the warrant, it is highly improbable that the appellants would abuse the Police on his caste especially when he was with Police team comprising several Police men. 4/5 Thus, in view of the aforesaid observations, the impugned order needs to be quashed by allowing the appeal. Now, to the order; : O R D E R : [1] The appeal is allowed. [2] In the event of their arrest, the appellants be released on executing a P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one or two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur. [3] The appellants shall not, in any manner whatsoever, influence the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly. [4] The appellants shall attend the concerned Police station on every Friday between 3.00 p.m and 6.00 p.m till filing of the charge-sheet. The appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. [PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.]