High Court decline to grants Anticipatory Bail to Three Accused in SC/ST Act as bar u/s 18 of SC/ST Atrocities Act

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD
  • 473
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Headnote

Criminal Law-- Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989-- Sections  3(I)(r), 3(l)(s), 14A and 18 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860-- Sections 354A, 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 504 and 506-- Code of criminal Procedure, 1973-- Section 438-- Complaint under provisions of IPC and under provisions of SC/ST Act registered-- Appellants/accused filed an appeal for pre-arrest bail-- Respondent no.3/complainant belonged to hindu Mahar community which is in SC category-- Respondent no.3/complainant got married with a person who was Hindu Maratha which is non schduled cast out of love affairs with him-- Appellant/accused no.1 along with other appellants came to the house of complainant and appellant no.1 torned the dress of complainant and outraged modesty and kicked on her stomach-- Use of abusive language against the caste of complaiant-- Utterance of abusive words on caste in front of house of complainant within public view-- Incident occurred in public view--Reliance placed on case of Kiran (Supra)-- Bar u/s 18 of SC/ST Act to invoke provisions u/s 438 of CRPC if accused have committed an offence under SC/ST Atrocities Act in public view-- Defense of appellants/accused cannot be considered at the initial stage while deciding anticipatory bail application-- Pre-arrest bail denied-- Appeal Dismissed

Para-- 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 21

Issue of Consideration: The Issue of whether the appellants should be granted anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations under the SC/ST Act and other offences, considering the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act and the merits of the prosecution case

2026 LawText (BOM) (01) 84

Criminal Appeal No. 604 of 2024

2026-01-22

Y. G. Khobragade, J.

2026:BHC-AUG:2613

Mr. R. R. Karpe, Advocate for the Appellants, Mr. R. D. Raut, APP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Mr. A. D. Ostwal, Advocate for Respondent No. 3

Rahul Baban Zaware, Sandip Laxman Choudhari, Dipak Dnyandev Lanke

The State of Maharashtra, The Superintendent of Police Ahmednagar, X. Y. Z. (informant)

Nature of Litigation: Criminal appeal against rejection of anticipatory bail application in a case involving allegations of caste-based atrocities, assault, and other offences

Remedy Sought

Appellants seeking anticipatory bail after their bail application was rejected by the Special Court

Filing Reason

Appellants challenged the order dated 01.07.2024 rejecting their pre-arrest bail application in Criminal Bail Application No. 811 of 2024

Previous Decisions

Additional Sessions Judge and Special Court under the Atrocities Act rejected anticipatory bail application on 01.07.2024

Issues

Whether the appellants should be granted anticipatory bail considering the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act Whether the prosecution has made out a prima facie case for offences under the SC/ST Act, particularly regarding knowledge of victim's caste Whether the FIR appears to be a counterblast to another FIR lodged by appellant No. 1

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants were falsely implicated and not present at the spot of incident -- Appellant No. 1 had lodged a separate FIR (No. 0414 of 2024) against informant's husband for an incident at the same time -- Timing discrepancy between alleged incident (11:30 AM-12:00 PM) and appellant No. 1's hospitalization (12:30 PM) -- FIR lacks positive assertion that appellants had knowledge of informant's caste -- Mere abuse with intention to insult without caste knowledge does not constitute offence under Section 3 of SC/ST Act -- FIR appears to be counterblast to appellant No. 1's FIR

Ratio Decidendi

For offences under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act, specific knowledge of victim's caste is essential -- Mere abuse with intention to insult without such knowledge does not attract Section 3 -- When FIR lacks positive assertion of caste knowledge and appears to be counterblast with timing discrepancies, bar under Section 18 of SC/ST Act does not apply -- Courts must evaluate prima facie case for bail purposes considering all circumstances

Judgment Excerpts

The appellants have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 -- The FIR No.0698 of 2024 lodged by respondent No.3 is counterblast to the FIR No.0414 of 2024 lodged by the present appellant No.1 -- No positive assertion given in the FIR that the appellants/accused are having knowledge about the caste of respondent No.3 / informant -- Merely with an intention to insult, abused on her caste does not constitute the offence -- Therefore, the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Atrocities Act does not create to enlarge the present appellants on anticipatory bail

Procedural History

Crime No. 0698 of 2024 registered on 07.06.2024 -- Criminal Bail Application No. 811 of 2024 filed before Special Court -- Bail application rejected on 01.07.2024 -- Criminal Appeal No. 604 of 2024 filed in High Court on 22.01.2026 -- Appeal allowed and anticipatory bail granted

Related Judgement
High Court High Court decline to grants Anticipatory Bail to Three Accused in SC/ST Act as bar u/s 18 of SC/ST Atrocities Act
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Incomplete Chain of Circumstantial Evidence -- High Court Conviction Reversed, Trial Court Acquittal Restored in IPC Sections 302, 120-B, 201, 506 Case