ANAND MAHADEV JAISWAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act , 1989 to challenge the order of rejection of the bail application for pre arrest filed by the present appellants before learned Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad i.e. Criminal Bail Application No.831/2020 dated 28.07.2020. The appellants are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.131/2020 registered with Ajintha Police Station, Tq. Sillod, Dist. Aurangabad for the offence punishable under Section 143 , 147 , 149 , 323 , 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(r) , 3(1)(s) , 3(1) (g), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act .

(2.) Heard learned Advocate Mr. K.H. Kahalekar for appellants, learned APP Mr. S.W. Munde for respondent No.1 and learned Advocate (appointed) Ms. Sheetal Salunke for respondent No.2.

(3.) It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the appellants, that the perusal of the First Information Report lodged by the present respondent No.2 would show, that she is claiming ownership over land Sy.No.51 and Gat No.84 from village Dakla, Tq. Sillod, Dist. Aurangabad. She has stated that the said property was purchased by her father-in-law in 1964 from one Kanhaiyyalal Bhogulal. After death of her father-in-law the land has devolved on his three sons Tejrao, Bajirao and Bhagaji. Bajirao is her husband and according to her, Tejrao and Bajirao are looking after the agricultural land. There is no partition amongst them. However, the 7/12 extract of Gat No.84 produced on record would show, that the respondent No.2 or her husband are not the owners of the property. In fact, appellant No.1, 2, 3 are the co-owners with others and their area is about 19 H 79 R. The 7/12 extract of 2016 onwards would show, that they are in possession. Therefore, there was no question of dispossession of the informant, who claims to be the member of Scheduled Caste. Prima facie offence under Section 3(1)(g) of the Atrocities Act is not at all made out. Further, the informant says that the accused persons had abused her as, ...[VARNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... These statements would also not attract the offence under Section 3(1)(r) or 3(1)(s) of the Atrocities Act. He relied on the decision of this Court in Criminal Appeal No.1163 of 2019 between Vijaymala vs. State of Maharashtra, LAWS(BOM)-2020-2-30, wherein after relying on the decisions in earlier cases i.e. Shashikant Ramhari Tambe and others vs. State of Maharashtra , 2008 ALL MR (Cri.) 2132 and Prakash Garde and others vs. The State of Maharashtra and another in Criminal Application No.2848 of 2016 decided on 09.06.2016, it has been held by this Court that the abuses cannot be in chorus. He also submitted that the incident has taken place in the land, which can be said to be a private place, and therefore, even if the alleged utterances would have been made, yet it was not within the public place, and therefore, the offence under Section 3(1)(r) or 3(1)(s) of the Atrocities Act has not been made out. The learned Special Judge failed to consider these aspects. The observation, that the application for pre arrest bail is barred under Section 18 of the Atrocities Act, is wrong. Learned Advocate for the appellants, therefore, prayed for releasing the appellants on pre arrest bail.