ANIL KUMAR MAHENDRAPRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 30/6/2023, the appellant was admitted to protection from arrest by way of an interim order, in C.R. No.749/2022 being registered on 27/9/2022, invoking the offences under the IPC and in particular, Sec. 406, 420 r/w Sec. 34 of the IPC.

(2.) In the said C.R, the applicant was held entitled to be released on bail in anticipation of his arrest by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Kalyan, and notice was issued to the respondent as to why the said order should not be confirmed. It is on 5/12/2022, the supplementary statement of the complainant is recorded, which prompted the Investigating Officer to add Ss. 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to the subject C.R. and since the provisions of the special statute were invoked in the wake of the bar imposed under Sec. 18 , the Sessions Court on 24/6/2023, refused the protection from arrest, which has constrained the appellant to file the present appeal.

(3.) The learned APP Mr. Nakhwa would press into service the supplementary statement of the complainant recorded on 5/12/2022. This statement is recorded precisely after a period of three months, when she first lodged a complaint, which resulted in invocation of offences under the IPC without any reference to the casteist abuses being hurled at him on 4/8/2022. The supplementary statement refer to an incident, of which a reference was made in the original complaint, but now with an improvisation, to the effect that when he went to the office at Dombivli, to demand his money back from accused no.1 Sunil Kumar and to question as to why he was abused in the name of caste by the present appellant, Anil Kumar, it is alleged that he was dragged out of the office and brought into a public place, and abuses were hurled at him in the name of caste, which caused humiliation and harassment to him. The supplementary statement make a reference to these abuses in specific.