BHAGWANT MALINATH PANCHAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant has invoked Sec. 14-A of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'SC and ST Act ') challenging the order dated 9 th January, 2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan rejecting the application for anticipatory bail preferred by the Appellant in connection with C.R. No.212 of 2022 registered with Central Police Station under Ss. 324, 452, 504, 427 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short ' IPC ) and Ss. 3(1)(s), 3(1)(u) and 3(1)(v) of Atrocities Act and Ss. 37(1) and 135 of Maharashtra Police Act.

(2.) The First Information Report (for short 'FIR') was registered on 29/5/2022. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the complainant belongs to scheduled caste. He runs a shop of car accessories. In the past Accused Vikas Tomar had assaulted the informant. Due to intervention of the neighbours the FIR was not registered. However, again there was fight between both of them and Accused Vikas Tomar had lodged report against the informant. On 29/5/2022 when the informant, his son and nephew were present in the shop, Vikas Tomar, Appellant and two other unknown persons came to the shop of informant. They were armed with wooden log and steel rod. They forcefully entered into the shop of informant and with an intention to humiliate he was abused on his caste. The Accused assaulted the informant, his son and nephew. He also caused also damage to the photo frame of Dr.Babasaheb Ambedekar displayed in the shop. Accused ran away from the spot. FIR was registered. During the course of investigation Vikas Tomar was arrested and he was released on bail. Charge-sheet has been filed against him.

(3.) Learned Advocate for Appellant submitted that the allegations in the FIR are vague. The alleged abuses are not specific. The role of assault is also not specific. The injuries are not serious. The main Accused who has been attributed prime role has been arrested and granted bail. The incident of abuses on caste is not corroborated by version of any independent witness. Thus, it cannot be said that the incident had occurred within public view. Bar under Sec. 18 of Atrocities Act will not be attracted in this case.