Bombay High Court Allows Anticipatory Bail to Accused in SC/ST Act Case Due to Lack of Caste-Based Intent. Traffic Dispute Leading to Abusive Language Does Not Attract Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act as Insult Was Not on Account of Caste.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD In Favour of Accused
  • 4
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, Dada @ Anil s/o Navnath Murkute, filed a criminal appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Atrocities Act) against the order dated 19.06.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shrigonda, rejecting his anticipatory bail application in Criminal Misc. Application No. 340/2020. The first informant, Rahul Ajinath Adsul, a member of the Hindu Mahar caste, alleged that on 07.06.2020 at about 10.55 a.m., while returning from a hospital with his wife, he found the appellant and another person talking on a tractor, blocking the road. When the first informant asked them to move, the appellant allegedly abused him with caste-related words such as "Mahar" and "Maharachi pod" and threatened him. The appellant was charged under Sections 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act. The Sessions Court rejected bail citing the bar under Section 18 of the Atrocities Act. The High Court examined the FIR and found that the incident arose from a traffic dispute, not due to the first informant's caste. The court held that the essential ingredient of the offence under Section 3(1)(x) is that the insult or intimidation must be on account of the victim being a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Since the altercation was over a road blockage, the caste-based insult was not the cause. Additionally, the court noted that the alleged abusive words were not uttered in public view with intent to humiliate, as required by the provision. Therefore, no prima facie case under the Atrocities Act was made out, and the bar under Section 18 did not apply. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and granted anticipatory bail to the appellant on certain conditions.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure Code - Anticipatory Bail - Section 438 CrPC - Section 14-A SC/ST Act - The court considered whether the bar under Section 18 of the Atrocities Act applies when the allegations do not prima facie constitute an offence under the Act. Held that if the accusations do not make out a case under the Atrocities Act, the bar is not attracted and anticipatory bail can be granted (Paras 8-12).

B) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Offence under Section 3(1)(x) - Intent to Humiliate - The essential ingredient is that the insult or intimidation must be on account of the victim being a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. In this case, the altercation arose from a traffic dispute and not due to caste, hence no prima facie case under the Act (Paras 13-15).

C) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Public View - Section 3(1)(x) - The alleged incident occurred on a public road, but the court noted that the insult was not intended to be heard by others or to humiliate in public view; it was a private altercation. Therefore, the offence under Section 3(1)(x) is not made out (Paras 16-18).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the appellant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, when the allegations do not prima facie disclose an offence under the Atrocities Act.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 19.06.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shrigonda in Criminal Misc. Application No. 340/2020 is set aside. The appellant is directed to be released on anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 107/2020 registered with Karjat Police Station, District Ahmednagar, on executing a PR bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one solvent surety of the like amount, subject to conditions including attendance as required, not tampering with evidence, and not leaving India without court permission.

Law Points

  • Anticipatory bail
  • Section 438 CrPC
  • Section 14-A SC/ST Act
  • Prima facie case
  • Intent to humiliate
  • Caste-based insult
  • Public view
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2020 LawText (BOM) (08) 5

Criminal Appeal No. 351 of 2020

2020-08-10

Shrikant D. Kulkarni, J.

Mr. Rahul R. Karpe for appellant, Mr. G.O. Wattamwar for respondent-State, Mr. R. G. Hange for respondent No.2

Dada @ Anil s/o Navnath Murkute

The State of Maharashtra and Rahul s/o Aginath Adsul

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against rejection of anticipatory bail under Section 14-A of the Atrocities Act.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR for offences under Sections 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act.

Filing Reason

Appellant's anticipatory bail was rejected by the Sessions Court on the ground of bar under Section 18 of the Atrocities Act.

Previous Decisions

The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shrigonda, rejected the anticipatory bail application vide order dated 19.06.2020 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 340/2020.

Issues

Whether the allegations in the FIR prima facie disclose an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act, particularly the ingredient that the insult was on account of the victim being a member of a Scheduled Caste. Whether the bar under Section 18 of the Atrocities Act applies to the grant of anticipatory bail when no prima facie case under the Act is made out.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant's counsel argued that the incident arose from a traffic dispute and not due to caste, and the alleged abusive words were not uttered in public view. Therefore, no prima facie case under the Atrocities Act is made out, and the bar under Section 18 does not apply. Respondent-State and first informant opposed bail, contending that the appellant used caste-related abuses, which attracts the provisions of the Atrocities Act, and the bar under Section 18 is applicable.

Ratio Decidendi

For the application of Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act, the insult or intimidation must be on account of the victim being a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. If the altercation arises from a non-caste issue such as a traffic dispute, the offence under the Atrocities Act is not made out. Consequently, the bar under Section 18 of the Act does not apply, and anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC can be granted.

Judgment Excerpts

The essential ingredient of the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act is that the insult or intimidation must be on account of the victim being a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. In the present case, the altercation took place because the appellant and another person were blocking the road with their vehicles, and the first informant asked them to move. The caste-based abuses were allegedly uttered in the heat of the moment, but not on account of the victim's caste. Therefore, no prima facie case under the Atrocities Act is made out, and the bar under Section 18 of the Act is not attracted.

Procedural History

The first informant lodged FIR on 07.06.2020. The appellant filed anticipatory bail application before the Sessions Court, which was rejected on 19.06.2020. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the present criminal appeal under Section 14-A of the Atrocities Act before the High Court, which was heard and disposed of on 10.08.2020.

Acts & Sections

  • Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: 3(1)(x), 14-A, 18
  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 438
  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: 504, 506
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Anticipatory Bail to Accused in SC/ST Act Case Due to Lack of Caste-Based Intent. Traffic Dispute Leading to Abusive Language Does Not Attract Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act as Insult Was Not on Account of Caste.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award for Violation of Natural Justice and Failure to Consider Evidence. The court held that the arbitrator's failure to consider the contractor's evidence and counter-claim, and the award being unreasoned, rende...