Bombay High Court Grants Pre-Arrest Bail to Accused in SC/ST Act Case Due to Lack of Intent to Humiliate on Caste Basis. Allegations of Caste-Based Insults Found to be Vague and Not Made in Public View, Attracting Section 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD In Favour of Accused
  • 59
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The present appeal was filed by four appellants against the order of the Sessions Court rejecting their application for pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 15 of 2019 registered at Dhule Taluka Police Station. The crime was registered under Sections 323, 504, 506, and 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (the Act). The first informant, Vaishali Hiralal Sonawane, alleged that on 17-05-2018 at around 10:00-10:30 p.m., while she was at her residence in the SRPF quarters with her daughter and sister-in-law, appellant Ganesh Patil visited and asked if anyone else had come to her house. When she replied in the negative, he frisked the house and forcibly took her cellphone. The next morning, appellant Jitendra Lonari informed her that a superior officer had called her. The first informant claimed that the appellants used caste-based abusive language and insulted her on the basis of her caste (Adivasi Bhil community). The appellants, who were SRPF personnel, sought anticipatory bail, which was denied by the Sessions Court. They then appealed under Section 14-A(2) of the Act. The main legal issues were whether a prima facie case under the Atrocities Act was made out, and whether the bar under Section 18 of the Act against granting anticipatory bail applied. The appellants argued that the allegations were vague and that the incident occurred inside a private quarter, not in public view. The respondent-State and the first informant opposed the bail, contending that the caste-based insults attracted the provisions of the Act. The court analyzed the requirements of Section 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) of the Act, which requires that the insult or intimidation be intended to humiliate on the ground of caste and be committed in public view. The court found that the allegations did not show any intent to humiliate on caste basis, as the appellants were merely performing their duty and the caste name was used incidentally. Moreover, the incident occurred inside a private quarter, not in public view. 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 and granted pre-arrest bail to the appellants on certain conditions.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure - Pre-arrest Bail - Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Appellants sought anticipatory bail in Crime No. 15/2019 for offences under IPC and Atrocities Act - Court held that bar under Section 18 of the Act is not absolute and if no prima facie case exists, bail can be granted - Held that allegations of caste-based insults were vague and not made in public view, thus no prima facie case under Section 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) (Paras 2-10).

B) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) - Caste-Based Insult - Requirement of Intent to Humiliate on Caste Basis - Allegations must show that accused knew the victim's caste and intended to humiliate on that ground - Mere use of caste name without such intent does not attract the provision - Held that in the present case, there was no evidence of intent to humiliate on caste basis (Paras 8-10).

C) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) - Public View Requirement - Offence under this section must be committed in public view - Incident occurred inside a private quarter, not in public view - Held that the requirement of public view is not satisfied (Paras 8-10).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

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, given the allegations under Sections 323, 504, 506, 509 IPC and Section 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) of the Act.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The appeal is allowed. The impugned order rejecting pre-arrest bail is set aside. The appellants are directed to be released on bail in Crime No. 15 of 2019 on executing a PR bond of Rs. 15,000/- each with one or two sureties. The appellants shall not tamper with prosecution evidence or influence witnesses, and shall attend the police station as required.

Law Points

  • Pre-arrest bail
  • Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
  • 1989
  • Section 14-A(2)
  • Section 3(1)(w)(i)(ii)
  • Indian Penal Code
  • Sections 323
  • 504
  • 506
  • 509
  • Prima facie case
  • Intent to humiliate on caste basis
  • Public view requirement
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2019 LawText (BOM) (04) 34

Criminal Appeal No. 276 of 2019

2019-04-30

K.K. Sonawane

Mr. N.L. Chaudhari for appellants, Mr. S.N. Kendre APP for respondent No. 1-State, Mr. A.D. Sonar for respondent No. 2

Avinash Prabhakar Chandra, Jitendra Dattatray Lonari, Ganesh Dilip Patil, Balu Dhondiba Shelekar

The State of Maharashtra, Vaishali Hiralal Sonawane

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

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against rejection of pre-arrest bail under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Remedy Sought

Appellants sought pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 15 of 2019 registered under Sections 323, 504, 506, 509 IPC and Section 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) of the SC/ST Act.

Filing Reason

Appellants were accused of entering the first informant's house, using caste-based abusive language, and forcibly taking her cellphone, allegedly intending to humiliate her on caste basis.

Previous Decisions

The Sessions Court rejected the appellants' application for pre-arrest bail.

Issues

Whether a prima facie case under Section 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) of the SC/ST Act is made out against the appellants. Whether the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act against granting anticipatory bail applies in this case. Whether the appellants are entitled to pre-arrest bail under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that the allegations are vague and do not disclose any intent to humiliate on caste basis; the incident occurred inside a private quarter, not in public view; they were performing their duty as SRPF personnel. Respondent-State and first informant argued that the appellants used caste-based abusive language and insulted the first informant on caste basis, attracting the provisions of the SC/ST Act, and the bar under Section 18 applies.

Ratio Decidendi

The bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act against granting anticipatory bail is not absolute; if no prima facie case under the Act is made out, the bar does not apply. For an offence under Section 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) of the Act, there must be intent to humiliate on caste basis and the act must be committed in public view. In this case, the allegations were vague, lacked intent to humiliate on caste basis, and the incident occurred inside a private quarter, not in public view. Hence, no prima facie case was made out, and the appellants were entitled to pre-arrest bail.

Judgment Excerpts

The bar under Section 18 of the Act of 1989 is not absolute and if no prima facie case is made out, the bar does not apply. The allegations do not show any intent to humiliate on caste basis, and the incident occurred inside a private quarter, not in public view.

Procedural History

On 30-01-2019, first informant Vaishali Sonawane lodged FIR at Dhule Taluka Police Station. Appellants applied for pre-arrest bail before Sessions Court, which was rejected. Appellants then filed Criminal Appeal No. 276 of 2019 under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. The appeal was heard and decided on 30-04-2019.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 323, 504, 506, 509
  • Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: 3(1)(w)(i)(ii), 14-A(2), 18
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes FIR Against Applicant in Representation of the People Act, 1950 — Teacher's Assignment to BLO Duties During School Hours Held Contrary to Supreme Court Directives. FIR Under Section 32 RPA for Failure to Perform BLO Duties...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Considers Writ Petition Seeking Enforcement of Detention Cum Demurrage Waiver Certificate and Clearance of Imported Goods Under Customs Act, 1962. Petitioner Seeks Directions to Implement Certificate Issued After Fresh Adjudication ...