PATEL VISHNUBHAI HARIBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed under Section 14 A of Scheduled Case and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "Atrocities Act") challenging the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha at Idar dated 29.05.2019 in Criminal Misc. Application No.235 of 2019 rejecting the anticipatory bail application preferred by the appellant.

(2.) The appellant is facing charge for an offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 (2) of the Atrocities Act vide C.R.No.I 51 of 2019 registered with Idar Police Station. According to the first informant, in the field of the appellant, she alongwith her family members, including her husband, two brothers-in-law and parents-in-law were staying in the field of the appellant and doing agricultural activities on crop share basis. As reflected from the FIR, on 1/4th crop share first informant and her family members are doing agricultural operation in the field of the appellant and are staying in a room provided by the appellant in the field. However, as per the FIR on 29.03.2019, the appellant is said to have gone to the field and at the room, asking the first informant to accompany him as her husband is detained in police station and if she wants to get him released on bail, she should accompany him at about 11:00 p.m. According to the FIR, after obtaining permission from her two brothers-in-law, who were sleeping at that time, she accompanied the appellant. However, instead of taking her to the police station, it is alleged that appellant took her to some field near Mohanpura Railway Crossing and committed rape over her.

(3.) Heard Mr.D.A.Sankhesara, learned advocate for the appellant. He submitted that as such there is no offence committed by the appellant, as claimed in the FIR. He has further submitted that it is an outcome of refusal to provide financial help to the first informant to get her husband released on bail. Thus, false case has been filed against him. He has drawn the attention to the affidavit, affirmed by respondent no.2 herein which is at page no.18 of the compilation, wherein it is stated that filing of an FIR against the appellant is because of refusal of the appellant to help her financially to get her husband released on bail, and therefore, to take revenge against him, she at the instance of her family members, in high haste filed an FIR. Therefore, learned advocate for the appellant submits that he may be released on anticipatory bail, as no offence under the Atrocities Act can be said to have been committed.