Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2715 (BOM)

Pravin v. State of Maharashtra

2018-11-02

Z.A.HAQ

body2018
JUDGMENT : Z.A. Haq, J. 1. Heard. 2. ADMIT. 3. Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No. 985/2018 registered by the respondent no. 1 for the offences punishable under Section 3(i) (r) and Section 3 (i) (s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "the Act of 1989") r/w Section 351, Section 504 and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant had filed an application before the Sessions Court under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This application is dismissed by the impugned order. 4. The crime is registered on the complaint lodged by the respondent no. 2 that the appellant abused her in the name of caste and with intention of insulting her in public view, knowing fully well that the respondent no. 2 belongs to the Scheduled Caste. 5. The prayer of the appellant is opposed on the ground that Section 18A of the Act of 1989 bars the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned advocate for the respondent no. 2 has relied on the judgment given in the case of Swaran Singh and Others vs. State Through Standing Counsel and Another, (2008) 8 SCC 435 : 2009 All MR (Cri) 260 (SC) and the judgment given in the case of Manju Devi vs. Onkarjit Singh Ahluwalia Alias Omkarjeet Singh and Others, (2017) 13 SCC 439 and the judgment given in the case of Vilas Pandurang Pawar and Another vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2012) 8 SCC 795 : 2012 All MR (Cri) 3743 (SC). 6. It is further pointed out by the learned APP and the learned advocate for the respondent no. 2 that earlier also, crimes are registered against the appellant in 2012 and 2014, and this fact is suppressed by the appellant. It is submitted that not only the appellant has suppressed the relevant facts from this Court, but a false affidavit is filed by the appellant stating that any other crime/offence is not registered against him. 7. The learned APP has produced the case diary which shows that the statement of Smt. Bharti Naresh Gedam, Member of the Zilla Parishad is recorded by the Investigating Officer. As per the statement of Smt. Bharti Naresh Gedam, when the dispute between the appellant and the respondent no. 2 arose, the respondent no. 7. The learned APP has produced the case diary which shows that the statement of Smt. Bharti Naresh Gedam, Member of the Zilla Parishad is recorded by the Investigating Officer. As per the statement of Smt. Bharti Naresh Gedam, when the dispute between the appellant and the respondent no. 2 arose, the respondent no. 2 told the appellant that he was trying to dominate as the respondent no. 2 was SC, and to this, the appellant answered that how it is relevant when the chairman is SC. The case diary shows that the statement of Shri Dinesh Bhimrao Tekam, Member of the Zilla Parishad is also recorded by the Investigating Officer. Shri Dinesh Bhimrao Tekam has stated that some dispute arose between the appellant and the respondent no. 2 regarding occupying a seat at the time of meeting, and there was exchange of words. However, Shri Dinesh Bhimrao Tekam has not corroborated the version of the respondent no. 2. The case diary shows that the statement of Parmeshwar Nilaram Rathod, Deputy Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad is also recorded. Shri Parmeshwar Nilaram Rathod has given the statement similar to that of Smt. Bharti Naresh Gedam. The statement of Shri Nilesh Devidas Talan, Senior Administrative Officer, Zilla Parishad is also recorded and he has given the statement similar to that of Smt. Bharti Naresh Gedam. The statements of Shri Gajanan Bhimrao Pachpor, Additional Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad and Shri Nitin Madhukarrao Mahore, Chairman, Zilla Parishad are also recorded and their statements are similar to that of Smt. Bharti Naresh Gedam. 8. On going through the statements, I find that the version of the complainant is not corroborated and therefore prima facie, it cannot be said that the offences punishable under Section 3 (i) (r) and Section 3 (i) (s) of the Act of 1989 is made out, and the prosecution will have to prove its case at the trial. Hence, in my view, the bar created by Section 18A of the Act of 1989 will not be attracted in the facts of the present case. 9. As far as the submissions made by the learned APP and the learned advocate for the respondent no. Hence, in my view, the bar created by Section 18A of the Act of 1989 will not be attracted in the facts of the present case. 9. As far as the submissions made by the learned APP and the learned advocate for the respondent no. 2 that the appellant has suppressed the relevant and material facts from this Court and therefore is not entitled for the relief, I find that the crimes/offences registered against the appellant in 2012 and 2014 are of trivial nature and as submitted by the learned advocate for the appellant looking to the fact that the appellant is a public representative and is required to go to the police station for various reasons and there is likelihood that because of it, he might have missed to give the proper instructions to the advocate, I am satisfied that the objections raised by the respondents on this ground should be rejected. 10. The respondent no. 1/State has not been able to point out that custody of the appellant is necessary for further investigation. 11. In view of the above, the following order is passed:- ORDER: (a) The order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 7 and the Special Judge, Amravati in Miscellaneous Criminal (Bail) Application No. 1160/2018 on 15.10.2018 is set aside. (b) In the event of arrest in connection with Crime No. 985/2018 registered by the respondent no. 1/State, the appellant be released on bail on furnishing cash security for Rs. 50,000/- and two solvent sureties for Rs. 20,000/- each. The cash security shall be furnished by the appellant before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 7 and Special Judge, Amravati. (c) The cash security that would be furnished by the appellant shall be treated as Muddemal and order regarding its disbursal shall be passed at the time of conclusion of the trial. 12. The appeal is allowed in the above terms.