Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1404 (BOM)

Suresh v. State of Maharashtra

2014-07-02

M.T.JOSHI

body2014
Judgment M.T. Joshi, J. 1. Heard both sides. The present applicant, who is apprehending arrest at the hands of Pathri Police Station, Dist. Parbhani in crime No. 63 of 2014 for the offences punishable under section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and under section 323, 324, 506, 504 of the Indian Penal Code, is praying for his release on anticipatory bail. 2. The present applicant is the Superior Officer of the complainant i.e. Assistant Traffic Inspector in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation. According to the complainant, on 16/4/2014, he went to his native place for the purposes of casting his vote. At that time, he had asked the present applicant to show him on leave. Thereafter, however, on 3/5/2014, when he went for verification, it was found that the leave was not sanctioned by the present applicant. Therefore, when the complainant questioned the applicant, at that time, the applicant abused him. Hot words were exchanged. During the quarrel, the applicant stated that the complainant is Adivasi (Tribal). He further stated that he would not sanction his leave. Further, he even asked for an amount of Rs. 500/-. In the said incident, the applicant gave a blow of certain iron plank on the head of the complainant, causing injury there. 3. On the basis of this complaint, the offence came to be registered. 4. Mr. Salunke, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the Superior Officer of the complainant. The penalty card of the complainant (page 37 and 38) would show that since the year 2003, the complainant is being penalized for his unauthorized absence on duty from time to time. This has occurred on 28 occasions. The allegations in the F.I.R. would show that the present applicant has not in any way insulted the complainant over his tribe. He further points towards the counter complaint filed by the present applicant on the very same day against the present complainant, which would show that in the said incident, the applicant has suffered injuries and therefore, the offence punishable under section 324, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code is already registered against the complainant. In the circumstances, he submits that the applicant be released on anticipatory bail. 5. The recitals in the F.I.R. would show that the present applicant has merely stated that the complainant is Adivasi. In the circumstances, he submits that the applicant be released on anticipatory bail. 5. The recitals in the F.I.R. would show that the present applicant has merely stated that the complainant is Adivasi. There are no allegations that the applicant has, in any way insulted the complainant over his tribe. Further, taking into consideration the overall facts, as stated by Mr. Salunke, on the basis of the record, in my view, without making any further comment on the merits of the case, since the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required, he can very well be released on anticipatory bail. 6. In the circumstances, the following order:- I) The Application is allowed. II) In the event of the arrest of the applicant in crime No. 63 of 2014 registered with Pathri Police Station, Dist. Parbhani for the offences punishable under section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and under section 323, 324, 506, 504 of the Indian Penal Code, he be released on bail, upon his executing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. Twenty Thousand) and also upon furnishing surety in the like amount. III) The applicant shall attend the Investigating Officer, as and when reasonably called by him for the purposes of investigation. Application is accordingly disposed of. Application allowed.