The Bombay High Court has held that the incident of abusing in caste occurred at a public place and within public view, with an intention to humiliate the informant, attracts the offence under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The Court reiterated that as the provision of Section 18 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, Act, 1989 with express language excludes the applicability of Section 438, CrPC, it creates a bar against grant of anticipatory bail in absolute terms in relations to the arrest of a person who faces specific accusations of having committed the offence under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Act. The benefit of anticipatory bail for such an accused is taken off.
Since, offence under the Atrocities Act prima facie appears to establish as against appellant Nos. 1 and 2, but it does not establish against appellant Nos. 3 and 4, therefore, interim order granted by this Court to the extent of appellant Nos. 1 and 2 needs to be recalled. However, the said interim order can be extended to the extent of appellant Nos. 3 and 4.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Y. G. Khobragade observed that the incident of uttering in casteist language as well as on the character of respondent No.3 / informant at the public place within the public view by saying abusive words, showing the intention of the accused No.2 appears about insulting the respondent No.3 in the public view, attracts the provisions of Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.
Reference was made to the case of Kiran Vs. Rajkumar, where it was held that Section 18 of the SC/ST Act 1989, exclude the applicability of Section 438 of CrPC, it creates a bar against grant of anticipatory bail in absolute terms in relation to arrest of a person who faces specific accusation having committed the offence under the SC/ST Atrocities Act within the public view.
Briefly, the third respondent/ informant, belonging to Scheduled Caste, lodged an oral report alleging that she, her husband, and her son, were abused and physically assaulted by the accused persons, and were also given threat to vacate their house. Based on this oral report, an FIR was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 309(4), 115(2), 296, 351(2), 352, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Special Judge declined to enlarge the appellants/accused on anticipatory bail in connection with this crime.
Appearances:
Advocate B. R. Warma, for the Appellants
APP V. M. Chate and Advocate S.T. Mahajan, for the Respondent
