Case Note & Summary
The present appeal was filed under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Atrocities Act) by four appellants, who were arraigned as accused Nos.2 to 5 in Crime No.859 of 2022 registered at Tofkhana Police Station, Ahmednagar. The FIR was lodged by respondent No.2 (the complainant) on 03.10.2022 initially under Sections 307, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against accused No.1 - Mahesh Manik Bhete, the husband of the deceased. Subsequently, on the basis of a supplementary statement, the names of the present appellants (father-in-law, mother-in-law, and other relatives of the deceased) were added, and additional offences under Sections 302, 498-A, 323 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Atrocities Act were invoked. The appellants filed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) being Bail Application No.1693 of 2022, which was rejected by the learned Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar on 15.10.2022 on the ground that it was barred under Section 18 of the Atrocities Act. Aggrieved, the appellants approached the High Court. The main legal issue was whether the bar under Section 18 of the Atrocities Act applies to the appellants' case, considering that they were residing separately from the deceased and accused No.1 due to the inter-caste marriage, and the FIR lacked specific allegations against them. The appellants argued that they were not present at the scene and had no role in the alleged offences. The State and the complainant opposed the bail, contending that the bar under Section 18 is attracted. The High Court, after hearing the parties, observed that the FIR initially did not name the appellants and that they were added later based on vague allegations. The court noted that the appellants were residing separately and that the deceased and accused No.1 had an inter-caste marriage, which was not approved by the family. However, the court found that there were no specific allegations of intentional insult or intimidation with caste-based intent against the appellants. The court held that the bar under Section 18 of the Atrocities Act is not attracted when the allegations do not prima facie constitute an offence under the Act. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Special Judge, and granted anticipatory bail to the appellants on certain conditions.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Anticipatory Bail - Section 438 CrPC - Bar under Section 18 of SC/ST Act - Where the FIR does not disclose specific allegations against the accused and they are residing separately, the bar under Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not attracted and anticipatory bail can be granted - Held that the appellants have made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail (Paras 5-6). B) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) - Inter-caste marriage - Mere inter-caste marriage does not automatically attract the provisions of the Atrocities Act unless there is specific allegation of intentional insult or intimidation with caste-based intent - Held that the allegations against the appellants are general and they were not present at the scene (Paras 4-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellants, who are in-laws of the deceased and residing separately, are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC despite the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act?
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The order dated 15.10.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Bail Application No.1693 of 2022 is set aside. The appellants are granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC on certain conditions.
Law Points
- Anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC is not barred under Section 18 of SC/ST Act if prima facie case is not made out
- Inter-caste marriage itself does not attract atrocity provisions
- Separate residence of accused is relevant for considering bail
