MAHESH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant / applicant and learned APP for the respondent no.1. Though notice is issued to the respondent no.2, the same is shown as awaited.

(2.) In brief, it is the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that if the allegations made in the First Information Report are taken to their face value and accepted in its entirety, still they make out no prima facie case to attract the ofence u/s 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act , 1989. It is contended that in absence of prima facie case, no bar operates to entertain the application seeking anticipatory bail. The Court below has failed to consider the legal and factual aspect of the matter and totally swayed away by the allegations made in the complaint.

(3.) It appears from the First Information Report lodged that in the year 2012-13, the informant had entered into contract with the Associated Cement Company of India to provide machinery on rental basis. The Cement Company agreed to provide machinery on rent at the rate of rupees seven lakhs per month towards use of the machinery. In the year 2017, the said Cement Company revoked the contract. On account of contractual dispute, some civil proceeding came to be fled in District Court at Aurangabad. The complainant has alleged that outside the Court, the applicant who was earlier working as General Manager of ACC Cement Company Ltd., has abused him in the name of caste.