JYOTI DEORAO MHASKE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition challenges the grant of anticipatory bail to the respondent nos. 5 to 8, in Criminal Bail Application No. 1339/2011, by the Special Judge, [Prevention of Atrocities (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Act, 1989] Aurangabad, on 15/09/2011.

(2.) The petitioner lodged a complaint against respondent Nos. 5 to 8, alleging that on 23/02/2011, while she belonging to Mang caste - a Scheduled Caste', was proceeding to Thakare Nagar to meet her brother and was passing along public street in front of New Om Medical and General Stores, N-2, CIDCO, Aurangabad, the respondent Nos. 5 to 8, persons belonging to Jain Marwadi caste- non Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe (for short "non S.C./S.T.") who were in the said stores, humiliated her with insult or annoyance by use of caste abusive language and assaulted her. Initially, it appears, the police remained passive to the complaint lodged by her and later on, the police responded to the issuance of notice in Criminal Writ Petition No. 635/2011 preferred by the petitioner against the State and registered an offence against the respondent Nos. 5 to 8, at Crime No. I-14/2011 under section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe ( Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ( for Short " the said Act,") and under section 323, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal code 1860, with Mukundwadi Police Station on 22/08/2011. It appears that the investigation was carried out in the said crime and the police recorded the scene of offence panchanama and the statements of the witnesses.

(3.) No sooner the crime was registered, the application for grant of anticipatory bail was moved before the Special Judge by the respondent Nos. 5 to 8, being Bail Petition No. 1339/2011. The parties including the present petitioner were heard, and anticipatory bail was granted to the respondent Nos. 5 to 8. Learned Special Judge was of the view that the alleged incident had not taken place in public view one of the essential requirement of section 3(i)(x) of the said Act and, therefore, bar under section 18 of the said Act would not come into play.