Case Note & Summary
The present appeal was filed by Kedarsingh Dharma Patil and Bablu @ Vinod Subhash Patil against the order of the Sessions Court rejecting their application for pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 120 of 2018 registered at Mehunbare Police Station, District Jalgaon, under Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va), 3(1)(g) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and Sections 143, 147, 294, 427 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case was that on 27-10-2018, the complainant Sakhubai Gopinath Sonwane, a member of the Bhill community (a Scheduled Tribe), along with her family, was residing in a shanty on Gaothan land. The appellants, who were the Sarpanch and Deputy Sarpanch of the village, along with three others, allegedly came to the spot, abused the complainant, threatened her, and demolished her shanty using a JCB machine. The complainant alleged that the appellants insulted her by calling her a 'Bhill' and used caste-related abusive language. The appellants sought pre-arrest bail, which was denied by the Sessions Court. In appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Act, the High Court examined the FIR and found that the complainant herself stated that she did not know the caste of the appellants. The court observed that the alleged insult was not on the ground of caste, as the complainant was not even aware of the caste of the accused. The court held that the bar under Section 18 of the Act would not apply if no prima facie case is made out. The court noted that the incident appeared to be a land dispute rather than a caste-based atrocity. The court granted pre-arrest bail to the appellants on certain conditions, including that they shall not tamper with evidence or influence witnesses.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Pre-arrest Bail - Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Prima Facie Case - The court considered whether the allegations in the FIR prima facie disclose an offence under the Act of 1989. Held that the bar under Section 18 of the Act does not apply if no prima facie case is made out. The court examined the FIR and found that the alleged insult was not on the ground of caste, as the complainant was not even aware of the caste of the accused. The court granted pre-arrest bail to the appellants. (Paras 2-10) B) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(r)(s) - Intent to Humiliate - The court held that for an offence under Section 3(1)(r)(s), the insult or intimidation must be intentionally committed on the ground of caste. In the present case, the complainant did not know the caste of the accused, and the incident appeared to be a land dispute rather than a caste-based atrocity. Therefore, no prima facie case was made out. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellants are 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 do not prima facie disclose an intent to humiliate the complainant on the ground of caste.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The appellants are granted pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 120 of 2018, subject to conditions including furnishing a PR bond of Rs. 15,000/- each, not tampering with evidence, and not influencing witnesses.
Law Points
- Pre-arrest bail
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
- 1989
- Section 14-A(2)
- Prima facie case
- Intent to humiliate
- Caste-based insult
