Bombay High Court Allows Pre-Arrest Bail in SC/ST Act Case for Alleged Kidnapping to Recover Debt. Court holds that bar under Section 18 of SC/ST Act does not apply when allegations under the Act are not prima facie made out, as dominant intent was recovery of money and victim not a member of SC/ST.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD In Favour of Accused
  • 11
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, Udhav Gyanoba Budhwant, filed an appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Act of 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 crime was registered under Section 365 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Sections 3(2)(va) and 3(1)(a) of the Act of 1989. The first informant, Dipali Narayan Thoke, alleged that on 09-11-2018, co-accused Bhaskar Rathod informed her brother-in-law that her brother Ramesh Pandurang Thoke had not repaid an advance of Rs. 4,00,000/- 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 10-08-2018, the victim informed his wife that he was kidnapped in a Cruiser Jeep and confined in the premises of Kranti Agragani Sahakari Sakhar. The appellant sought anticipatory bail, which was rejected by the Sessions Court. The High Court considered the submissions of the appellant's counsel that the allegations were civil in nature and the victim was not a member of SC/ST, and the respondent's counsel argued that the bar under Section 18 of the Act of 1989 applied. The court held that the bar under Section 18 does not apply if the allegations under the Act are not prima facie made out. Since the dominant intent was recovery of money and the victim was not a member of SC/ST, no prima facie case under the Act was made out. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and granted anticipatory bail to the appellant on conditions including furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety, cooperating with the investigation, and not tampering with evidence.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 438 - Anticipatory Bail - Bar under Section 18 of SC/ST Act - Applicability - Where the allegations under the SC/ST Act are not prima facie made out, the bar under Section 18 does not apply and the court can entertain an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC (Para 7).

B) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(a) and 3(2)(va) - Prima Facie Case - Kidnapping for recovery of debt - The dominant intent of the accused was to recover money, not to humiliate the victim on caste grounds. The victim is not a member of SC/ST. Therefore, no prima facie case under the Act is made out (Paras 8-9).

C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 438 - Anticipatory Bail - Conditions - The appellant is directed to be released on bail in the event of arrest on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety, subject to conditions including cooperation with investigation and not tampering with evidence (Para 10).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the bar under Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against grant of anticipatory bail applies when the allegations under the Act are not prima facie made out, and whether the appellant is entitled to pre-arrest bail.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 31-12-2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani, is set aside. The appellant is directed to be released on bail in the event of arrest in Crime No. 417 of 2018 on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety. Conditions include: the appellant shall not tamper with prosecution evidence, shall attend the police station as required, shall not leave India without court permission, and shall cooperate with the investigation.

Law Points

  • Anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC is not barred by Section 18 of the SC/ST Act if the allegations do not prima facie constitute an offence under the Act
  • especially when the dominant intent is recovery of money and not caste-based humiliation
  • and the victim is not a member of SC/ST.
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2019 LawText (BOM) (03) 26

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 the SC/ST Act.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 417 of 2018.

Filing Reason

Appellant was accused of kidnapping the victim to recover an outstanding debt of Rs. 4,00,000/-.

Previous Decisions

The Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani, rejected the anticipatory bail application vide order dated 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 grant of anticipatory bail when the allegations under the Act are not prima facie made out. Whether the appellant is entitled to pre-arrest bail in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant's counsel argued that the allegations are civil in nature, the victim is not a member of SC/ST, and the dominant intent was recovery of money, not caste-based humiliation. Therefore, no prima facie case under the SC/ST Act is made out, and the bar under Section 18 does not apply. Respondent's counsel argued that the bar under Section 18 of the Act of 1989 is absolute and the appellant is not entitled to anticipatory bail.

Ratio Decidendi

The bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act against grant of anticipatory bail does not apply if the allegations under the Act are not prima facie made out. Where the dominant intent of the accused is recovery of money and the victim is not a member of SC/ST, no prima facie case under the Act is made out, and the court can grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC.

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. The dominant intention of the accused appears to be to recover the amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- from the victim and not to humiliate him on the ground of caste. The victim is not a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, no prima facie case under the Act of 1989 is made out.

Procedural History

The appellant filed an anticipatory bail application before the Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani, which was rejected on 31-12-2018. The appellant then filed the present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. The appeal was admitted and taken up for final hearing with consent of both sides.

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
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Police Recruitment Case — Upholds Candidature of Appellant Found Eligible Despite Typographical Error in Application. Error in Date of Birth Column Did Not Render Candidate Disqualified Where Actual Age Was Within Lim...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Grants Bail to Appellant in NDPS Act Case Citing Prolonged Incarceration and Parity with Co-Accused. Trial Courts Directed to Ensure Legal Representation Rights