MOHAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . 1. Present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act , 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Atrocities Act') to challenge the order of rejection of anticipatory bail application filed by present appellants under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Kandhar, Link Court, Mukhed in Criminal Bail Application No.199 of 2020 on 07-11-2020. The appellants are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.359 of 2020 registered with Mukhed Police Station, District Nanded for the offences punishable under Sections 323 , 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Atrocities Act.

(2.) Heard learned Advocate Mr. S. D. Hiwrare for appellants, learned APP Mr. S. R. Yadav for respondent No.1 - State and learned Advocate Mr. S. S. Khoche for respondent No.2 (appointed).

(3.) It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the appellants that the appellants have been falsely implicated by the informant. They have not committed any offence. In fact, appellant No.1 and his family members are cultivating land Gut No.27 situated at Salgara (Kd), Tq. Mukhed, which is Gairan land since last 30 years or so. However, their names have been wrongly mutated for land Gut No.118 in the 7/12 extract. The informant and other five persons are taking disadvantage of this fact and they started encroaching over the land under cultivation by the appellants. Appellant No.1 had then made representation to the Tahsildar on 30-09-2020. It would also informed that they would go for hunger strike, if the mutation entry is not corrected. It was also informed that the threat has been given by the informant to lodge case under Atrocities Act against the appellants. However, Tahsildar did not correct the entry and ultimately, the appellant and his family members were constrained to sit for hunger strike on 19-10-2020. No legal action was taken by Tahsildar against respondent No.2. No incident as per the contents of the FIR has taken place. The appellants have not abused the informant. Further, mere allegations in the FIR by appellant Nos.1 and 4 to the informant as 'ekaxM~;k' will not amount to insult in the name of caste as it is so held in Jairam Shankarrao Tale Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another, (2019 ALL MR (Cri.) 3663) . Therefore, no offence is prima facie made out which would attract any offence under the Atrocities Act. The learned Special Judge wrongly hold that there is bar under Section 18 of the Atrocities Act. There is no question of any recovery at the hands of the present appellants and, therefore, their appeal deserves to be allowed.