10 June 2024


Judgments

High Court of Bombay

Ajinkya Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

MANU/MH/2270/2023

27.06.2023

Criminal

It is not permissible for the Court to enter into roving enquiry in regard to sustainability of accusation nurtured on behalf of the complainant

Present appeal is preferred by the Appellant under Section 14A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ('the Act of 1989') against the order by which the anticipatory bail application of the Appellant, is rejected by the Sessions Court. The point of controversy in the present appeal is on the question of pre-arrest bail by exercising power under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)

From the various judicial decisions, it is evident that application under Section 438 of the CrPC for the relief of anticipatory bail can be entertained only on the ground of inapplicability of the provisions of the Act of 1989 and it would be verifiable only after perusal of recitals of FIR or complaint itself and not beyond that. It is the rule that once it is gathered from the FIR that the Appellant is the accused of committing of offence as prescribed under Section 3(1)(r)(s) or 3(1)(w)(ii) of the Act, the bar under Section 18A of the Act of 1989 would come into operation against him. If the contents of FIR do not constitute ingredients of offence under the Act of 1989, there would not be any embargo of statutory bar in grafted under Section 18 or 18A of Act of 1989. It is not permissible for the Court to enter into roving enquiry in regard to sustainability of accusation nurtured on behalf of the complainant.

Inspite of Bar under Section 18 and 18A of the Act for involving the power under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., it is still open to this Court to find out by looking to the FIR of the case itself as to whether prima facie case is made out against the present Appellant. There are circumstances shows that there was previous dispute between informant and the present appellant. Present appellant has filed report against him. There are no any circumstances incriminating in nature on record to point out intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate the informant within public view by the appellant.

On the Contrary, allegations are against the informant that he obstructed the work of the Appellant wherein he was discharging his public duty. Thus, all allegations by the informant are vague in nature. The impugned order rejecting the bail application passed in Criminal Application passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is quashed and set aside. Appeal allowed.

Tags : Bail Rejection Legality

Share :