Case Note & Summary
The appellants, Narayan and Kailas Ghuge, filed a criminal appeal against the order of the Special Judge/Sessions Judge, Parbhani, dated 6 June 2022, which rejected their anticipatory bail application in Criminal M.A. (Bail) No.491 of 2022. The case arose from a boundary dispute between the appellants and the informant, Machhindranath Khilare, who belongs to a Scheduled Caste. The informant alleged that the appellants abused him with caste-based epithets and threatened him near the common boundary of their lands, leading to registration of offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The appellants contended that they were falsely implicated due to the boundary dispute and that the incident did not occur in public view. The court, after hearing arguments, noted that the allegations primarily pertained to a civil boundary dispute and that there was no specific allegation of caste-based insult in public view. The court held that the bar under Section 18 of the Atrocities Act does not apply if no prima facie case is made out. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and granted anticipatory bail to the appellants on certain conditions.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Anticipatory Bail - Section 438 CrPC - Prima Facie Case - The court considered whether anticipatory bail should be granted when the allegations under the Atrocities Act are based on a boundary dispute and there is no specific allegation of caste-based insult in public view. Held that the bar under Section 18 of the Atrocities Act does not apply if no prima facie case is made out, and the appellants are entitled to bail (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellants are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in a case registered under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, when the allegations arise out of a boundary dispute and there is no specific allegation of caste-based insult in public view.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The order dated 6 June 2022 passed by the learned Special Judge/Sessions Judge, Parbhani, in Criminal M.A. (Bail) No.491 of 2022 is set aside. The appellants are directed to be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing P.R. bond of Rs.15,000/- each with one solvent surety each of the like amount, subject to conditions including attendance before the Investigating Officer as and when required, not tampering with evidence, and not leaving India without prior permission.
Law Points
- Anticipatory bail
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
- 1989
- Section 3(1)(g)
- Prima facie case
- Caste-based insult
- Public view
- Boundary dispute
Case Details
2022 LawText (BOM) (07) 2
Criminal Appeal No.469 of 2022
Mr. Amol N. Patale h/f Mr. Aashish T. Jadhavar for Appellants, Mr. B.V. Virdhe, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1, Mr. S.S. Jangada for Respondent No.2
Narayan S/o Ganpatrao Ghuge and Kailas S/o Ganpatrao Ghuge
The State of Maharashtra and Machhindranath S/o Kisan Khilare
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against rejection of anticipatory bail in a case under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Remedy Sought
The appellants sought confirmation of anticipatory bail granted earlier by the court.
Filing Reason
The appellants were falsely implicated due to a boundary dispute with the informant, who took disadvantage of caste to lodge a report.
Previous Decisions
The Special Judge/Sessions Judge, Parbhani, rejected the anticipatory bail application of the appellants vide order dated 6 June 2022 in Criminal M.A. (Bail) No.491 of 2022.
Issues
Whether the appellants are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC when the allegations under the Atrocities Act arise from a boundary dispute and lack specific caste-based insult in public view.
Whether the bar under Section 18 of the Atrocities Act applies to the present case.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants: They have been falsely implicated due to a boundary dispute; the informant took disadvantage of caste to lodge the report; the court had earlier protected them and that protection deserves to be confirmed.
Respondents: The incident took place near the common boundary and in public view; the facts give rise to offence under Section 3(1)(g) of the Atrocities Act; the order of the Special Judge is correct and the appeal should be dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
The bar under Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, does not apply if no prima facie case is made out against the accused. In the present case, the allegations primarily pertain to a boundary dispute and there is no specific allegation of caste-based insult in public view, thus the appellants are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Judgment Excerpts
Learned Advocate Mr. Patale holding for learned Advocate Mr. Jadhavar for the appellants submits that the appellants have been falsely implicated and there is boundary dispute between the appellants and the informant and taking disadvantage of the caste, the informant has lodged the report.
Learned APP as well as learned Advocate appearing for respondent No.2 strongly opposes the appeal and they support the reasons given by the learned Special Judge / learned Sessions Judge, Parbhani in order dated 6th June 2022 in Criminal M.A. (Bail) No.491 of 2022.
Procedural History
The appellants filed an anticipatory bail application before the Special Judge/Sessions Judge, Parbhani, which was rejected on 6 June 2022. Aggrieved, they filed the present criminal appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, which was heard and allowed on 22 July 2022.
Acts & Sections
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: Section 3(1)(g), Section 18
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 438
