Case Note & Summary
The case involves three criminal appeals filed by Parmeshwar Sitaram Rathod, Ranjit Balbhim Todkari, and Aappa @ Digambar Bhaskar Joshi against the order of the Sessions Court rejecting their pre-arrest bail applications in Crime No. 335 of 2019 registered at Tuljapur Police Station, District Osmanabad. The FIR was lodged by Vandana Devidas Maske, the informant, alleging offences under Sections 354, 323, 447, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The informant claimed that the appellants, who are her neighbours, trespassed into her land, assaulted her, and outraged her modesty by pulling her saree, while also using caste-based abusive language. The appellants contended that the dispute was civil in nature regarding a land boundary, and the allegations were false and motivated. They argued that the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act did not apply as no prima facie case under the Act was made out. The court, after hearing both sides, observed that the allegations did not disclose any specific intent to humiliate the informant on caste grounds. The incident appeared to be a result of a land dispute, and the injury was minor. The court held that the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act is not attracted when the accusations are false or lack the requisite intent. Accordingly, the court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned order, and granted pre-arrest bail to the appellants on certain conditions.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Pre-arrest Bail - Section 438 CrPC - Bar under Section 18 of SC/ST Act - The court considered whether the bar under Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, applies when the allegations do not prima facie disclose an offence under the Act. Held that the bar is not attracted if the accusations are false or lack the requisite intent to humiliate on caste grounds. (Paras 1-10) B) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) - Intent to Humiliate - The court examined whether the alleged acts of trespass and outraging modesty were committed with the intent to humiliate the informant on caste lines. Held that the dispute was essentially civil over land and the allegations did not show any caste-based animus, thus not attracting the provisions of the Act. (Paras 5-10) C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 354, 323, 447, 504 read with 34 - Outraging Modesty - The court found that the allegations of outraging modesty were vague and lacked specific details, and the injury was minor. Held that the appellants made out a case for pre-arrest bail as the custodial interrogation was not necessary. (Paras 5-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellants are entitled to pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, when the FIR includes offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and whether the bar under Section 18 of the said Act applies.
Final Decision
Appeals allowed. Impugned order set aside. Appellants granted pre-arrest bail on executing PR bond of Rs. 15,000/- each with one solvent surety, subject to conditions including attendance at police station as required and not tampering with evidence.
Law Points
- Pre-arrest bail
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
- 1989
- Prima facie case
- Intent to humiliate
- Civil dispute
- Outraging modesty
- Trespass
- Section 438 CrPC
- Section 18 of SC/ST Act
