Bombay High Court Grants Pre-Arrest Bail to Accused in SC/ST Act Case for Kidnapping Allegedly Related to Recovery of Loan Amount. The court held that the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act does not apply when the victim is not a member of SC/ST and the allegations do not prima facie constitute an offence under the Act.

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

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, Udhav Gyanoba Budhwant, filed a criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, challenging the order dated 31-12-2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani, rejecting his anticipatory bail application in Crime No. 417 of 2018 registered at Police Station Jintur, District Parbhani. The FIR was lodged by Deepali Narayan Thoke on 15-11-2018 alleging that on 09-11-2018, co-accused Bhaskar Rathod informed her brother-in-law that her husband's brother Ramesh Pandurang Thoke had not repaid an advance of Rs. 4,00,000/- taken for harvesting sugarcane crop and had not completed the work. Consequently, the accused kidnapped her husband Narayan Pandurang Thoke to recover the outstanding amount. On 10-11-2018, the victim informed his wife that he was kidnapped in a Cruiser Jeep and confined in the premises of Kranti Agragani Sahakari Sakhar. The FIR was registered under Section 365 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(2)(va) and 3(1)(a) of the SC/ST Act. The appellant sought pre-arrest bail contending that he was not named in the FIR, no specific role was attributed to him, and the victim was not a member of SC/ST community, thus the provisions of the SC/ST Act were not attracted. The State opposed the bail citing the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act. The court examined the FIR and found that the victim was not alleged to be a member of SC/ST, hence Section 3(2)(va) was not applicable. Further, Section 3(1)(a) requires intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate in public view, which was not disclosed. The court held that the bar under Section 18 does not apply when the allegations do not prima facie constitute an offence under the Act. Considering that the appellant was not named, no custodial interrogation was necessary, and the offence was triable by Magistrate, the court allowed the appeal and granted pre-arrest bail to the appellant on certain conditions.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure Code - Anticipatory Bail - Section 438 - Bar under Section 18 of SC/ST Act - The bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act does not apply if the allegations do not prima facie constitute an offence under the Act. The court must examine the FIR and material to see if a prima facie case is made out. (Para 4-6)

B) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(2)(va) - Kidnapping - The provision applies only if the victim is a member of SC/ST. In this case, the victim is not alleged to be a member of SC/ST, hence Section 3(2)(va) is not attracted. (Para 5)

C) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(a) - Intentional Insult or Intimidation - The provision requires intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate in public view. The FIR does not disclose any such act by the appellant. (Para 5)

D) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 365 - Kidnapping - The allegation of kidnapping is for recovery of a loan amount. The appellant is not named in the FIR and there is no specific overt act attributed to him. The custodial interrogation may not be necessary. (Para 6-7)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the appellant is entitled to pre-arrest bail under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, when the allegations involve kidnapping for recovery of a loan amount and the victim is not a member of SC/ST community.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal allowed. The impugned order dated 31-12-2018 is set aside. The appellant is directed to be released on pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 417 of 2018 on executing PR bond of Rs. 15,000/- with one solvent surety. Conditions: appellant shall not tamper with prosecution evidence, shall attend police station as required, shall not commit similar offence, and shall furnish his address and contact details.

Law Points

  • Anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC is not barred by Section 18 of SC/ST Act if prima facie case is not made out
  • Kidnapping for recovery of debt may not attract Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act if victim is not a member of SC/ST
  • Section 3(1)(a) of SC/ST Act requires intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate in public view
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2019 LawText (BOM) (02) 6

Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 2019

2019-02-27

K.K. Sonawane

Mr. R.S. Shinde holding for Mr. V.P. Latange for appellant, Mr. P.G. Borade, APP for respondents No. 1 and 2, Ms. Sheetal Eknath Wagmare for respondent No. 3

Udhav S/o Gyanoba Budhwant

The State of Maharashtra, The District Superintendent of Police, Parbhani, Deepali W/o Narayan Thoke

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(2) of SC/ST Act

Remedy Sought

Pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 417 of 2018

Filing Reason

Appellant sought anticipatory bail alleging false implication in kidnapping case for recovery of loan amount

Previous Decisions

Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani rejected anticipatory bail on 31-12-2018 in Criminal Misc. (Bail) Application No. 775 of 2018

Issues

Whether the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act applies to the appellant's anticipatory bail application? Whether the allegations prima facie constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act? Whether the appellant is entitled to pre-arrest bail?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that he is not named in FIR, no specific role attributed, victim not a member of SC/ST, hence SC/ST Act not attracted, and he is ready to cooperate with investigation. Respondent State opposed bail citing bar under Section 18 of SC/ST Act and seriousness of offence.

Ratio Decidendi

The bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act does not apply if the allegations do not prima facie constitute an offence under the Act. The court must examine the FIR to see if a prima facie case is made out. In this case, the victim is not a member of SC/ST, hence Section 3(2)(va) is not attracted, and Section 3(1)(a) requires intentional insult in public view which is not disclosed. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to anticipatory bail.

Judgment Excerpts

The bar under Section 18 of the Act of 1989 would not be applicable if the allegations made in the FIR do not prima facie constitute an offence under the Act of 1989. In the instant case, the victim is not alleged to be a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community. Therefore, the provisions of Section 3(2)(va) of the Act of 1989 are not attracted. The appellant is not named in the FIR and no specific overt act is attributed to him. The custodial interrogation of the appellant may not be necessary.

Procedural History

FIR registered on 15-11-2018 at Police Station Jintur for offences under Section 365 r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3(2)(va) and 3(1)(a) of SC/ST Act. Appellant filed anticipatory bail application before Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani which was rejected on 31-12-2018. Appellant then filed the present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of SC/ST Act before the High Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: Section 14-A(2), Section 3(2)(va), Section 3(1)(a), Section 18
  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 365, Section 34
  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 438
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Grants Pre-Arrest Bail to Accused in SC/ST Act Case for Kidnapping Allegedly Related to Recovery of Loan Amount. The court held that the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act does not apply when the victim is not a member of SC/ST a...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Acquits Appellant in Essential Commodities Act Case Due to Lack of Evidence of Sale. Conviction under Section 3(2)(d) read with Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 set aside as prosecution failed to prove that the...