Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Yamunabai w/o Kundlik Suryawanshi, filed a criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Atrocities Act) challenging the rejection of her pre-arrest bail application by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Parbhani. She apprehended arrest in Crime No.154 of 2020 registered at Parbhani (Rural) Police Station for offences under Sections 324, 323, 504, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(va) of the Atrocities Act. The FIR was lodged by respondent No.2, Dnyanoba Bapurao Tupsamindre. The incident occurred on 26-07-2020 at about 3.00 p.m., triggered by a quarrel between the appellant and the daughters of the informant. The informant was not present initially but was informed later. When the informant's wife returned, the appellant allegedly went to their courtyard and abused them. The appellant's husband and one Gaju Shankar Kharwade then assaulted the informant's wife with a stick, causing a bleeding injury, and Gaju assaulted the informant on his right hand. The appellant allegedly caused a covert injury to the informant's daughter. The FIR stated that the informant and his family are members of a Scheduled Caste, but no specific caste-based abuses were alleged. The appellant argued that the offence under Section 3(2)(va) of the Atrocities Act was not made out as the incident arose from a child dispute without caste-based intent, and thus the bar under Section 18 of the Atrocities Act did not apply. The court, after hearing arguments, found that the FIR did not disclose the ingredients of the offence under the Atrocities Act, as there were no allegations of caste-based abuses or intent. The incident appeared to be a result of a sudden quarrel, not because the victims belonged to a Scheduled Caste. Therefore, the bar under Section 18 of the Atrocities Act was not attracted, and the appellant was entitled to pre-arrest bail. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Special Judge, and granted pre-arrest bail to the appellant on certain conditions.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Pre-arrest Bail - Section 438 CrPC - Bar under Section 18 Atrocities Act - The court considered whether the bar under Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 applies when the offence under Section 3(2)(va) is not prima facie made out. Held that if the allegations do not disclose the ingredients of the offence under the Atrocities Act, the bar does not operate and the court can entertain a pre-arrest bail application (Paras 5-7). B) Atrocities Act - Offence under Section 3(2)(va) - Caste-Based Intent - The court examined whether the incident, which arose from a quarrel between children, was motivated by caste-based animus. Held that the FIR lacked specific allegations of caste-based abuses or intent, and the incident appeared to be a result of a sudden quarrel, not because the victims belonged to a Scheduled Caste (Paras 5-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant is entitled to pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC when the FIR alleges offences under the Atrocities Act, and whether the bar under Section 18 of the Atrocities Act applies.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Parbhani in Criminal Miscellaneous (Bail) Application No.645 of 2020 dated 07-08-2020 is set aside. The appellant is directed to be released on pre-arrest bail in Crime No.154 of 2020 on executing a PR bond of Rs.15,000/- with one solvent surety, subject to conditions including attendance at the police station as required, not tampering with evidence, and not leaving India without court permission.
Law Points
- Pre-arrest bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Section 14-A(2) Atrocities Act
- Section 18 bar
- prima facie case
- caste-based intent
