DNYANESHWAR NARAYAN BHOSLE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appeal is fled by the two Appellants, arraigned as Accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.R.No.70 of 2023 registered with Badlapur Police Station, which has invoked Ss. 323, 324, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "the IPC") and Ss. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(y) of the Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, "the Act of 1989"), being aggrieved by the order dtd. 17/03/2023, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan, thereby rejecting their bail application. They came to be arrested on 07/03/2023, on being accused of committing the alleged offences, on the complaint fled by Rohit Dhangar on 07/03/2023 at about 4.15 hrs.

(2.) Prima facie, in the wake of the accusations contained in the complaint, when it is read as it is, one fail to understand the basis for invocation of Sec. 3(1)(y), which is in relation to denial of customary right of passage to a place of public resort to a member of a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe or obstructing such a member, so as to prevent him from using or having access to a place of public resort to which other members of public or any other Sec. thereof have a right to use or access. As far as allegations attracting Ss. 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) are concerned, which punishes an act of intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate a member of a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe in any place within public view and for being abusive by calling him in the name of his caste, in any place within public view, they are attributed to Appellant No.1. Even these accusations, prima facie, are not intended to insult a particular individual, but according to the narration of the complainant, they were intended towards all the members of the community, who were present there. Whether the said accusations amounted to insult or intimidation to a particular individual, will have to be decided at the time of trial.

(3.) Another aspect of the matter is, the cross FIR which is lodged by one Sou.Kushali Sohoni, resident of the very same locality, in respect of the same incident, when she reported that while Holi was being celebrated and she was present there alongwith her family members and friends, she felt that somebody was pulling her apparel (dupatta). She ignored the said conduct, but later on realised that her apparel was actually pulled, and she noticed the accused persons, who were the residents of the same locality. One male member from the crowd came to her rescue and it is her version that the boys in the locality were made to understand not to indulge in such type of act, but this gave rise to a tiff between the two groups and her version is, abuses were hurled by the named accused persons, which include Aditya Dhangar, Bala Dhangar, Aryan Raut and 10 to 15 other persons.