Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Chhaya Devkate, mother of the main accused Vishwajeet, filed a criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, challenging the rejection of her pre-arrest bail application by the trial court. The case arose from Crime No. 95 of 2019 registered at Latur Gramin Police Station for offences under Sections 420, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(ii) of the SC/ST Act. The complainant, Anuksha Kamble, alleged that in 2016, after her 10th standard examination, she came to her maternal aunt's house at Katpur, District Latur, where she met Vishwajeet Devkate. He developed intimacy with her, promised to marry her, and had physical relations with her on the pretext of marriage. In 2019, she became pregnant and insisted on marriage, but Vishwajeet refused. The complainant also alleged that the appellant, his mother, supported her son and abused the complainant by her caste name. The appellant sought pre-arrest bail, which was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Latur. The High Court heard the appeal. The appellant's counsel argued that she was a permanent resident and had no role in the alleged promise to marry or physical relations. The State and complainant opposed the bail. The court observed that the appellant was the mother of the main accused and there were no specific allegations against her except that she supported her son and abused the complainant. The court held that the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act was not attracted as no prima facie case was made out against the appellant. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and granted pre-arrest bail to the appellant on certain conditions.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 438 - Pre-arrest bail - Anticipatory bail - The court considered the application for pre-arrest bail in a case under Sections 420, 34 IPC and Section 3(1)(ii) of the SC/ST Act - Held that the appellant, being the mother of the main accused, had no direct role in the alleged promise to marry or the physical relations - The allegations against her were vague and she was a permanent resident - No custodial interrogation required - Bail granted (Paras 1-8). B) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 14-A(2) - Appeal against rejection of anticipatory bail - The appellant invoked remedy under Section 14-A(2) of the Act of 1989 against the order rejecting pre-arrest bail - The court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order - Held that the bar under Section 18 of the Act was not attracted as no prima facie case was made out against the appellant (Paras 2, 8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant-accused is entitled to pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC read with Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, in a case involving allegations of cheating and abetment of a promise to marry.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 17-08-2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Latur, is set aside. The appellant is directed to be released on pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 95 of 2019 on executing a PR bond of Rs. 15,000/- with one solvent surety. The appellant shall not tamper with prosecution evidence or influence witnesses.
Law Points
- Pre-arrest bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Section 14-A(2) SC/ST Act
- Prima facie case
- Custodial interrogation
- Promise to marry
- Abetment
