A.M. Dhavale DECISION
A.M. Dhavale, J.
1. The appellant challenges the order passed by the ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, Nanded, in Criminal Bail Application No. 71 of 2019 dt. 08.02.2019, rejecting the application for anticipatory bail on the ground that it was barred by Section 18 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as "SC&ST Act"). The appellant had claimed anticipatory bail in Crime No. 12 of 2019 of Vazirabad Police Station registered on the basis of FIR of respondent No. 3 for offences punishable u/s. 506 IPC and u/s. 3(1)(r)(s) of SC & ST Act.
2. As per the FIR dt. 19.01.2019, on the same day at 06:00 to 07:00 p.m., the informant Vikas Salve, a Police Constable was proceeding to Civil Hospital, Vazirabad. That time, the appellant, who is brother of lady Constable Anusaya Kendre against whom the informant had filed case under SC & ST Act met him in the parking space and addressed him as
(He had threatened him to withdraw the case under Atrocities Act against his sister otherwise he would tie a broomstick to his buttocks and would parade him on a donkey seat in village). He was also threatened that, his mother and sister would be killed. The informant also stated that, the appellant threatened that he was political leader and his brother was carrying a pistol and he would kill his family. He apprehended danger to himself and his family at the hands of the appellant.
3. Shri. R.S. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the appellant argued that, the appellant's sister Anusuya who is a lady Constable was harassed by the informant and she had filed case u/s. 354 IPC against him which ended into conviction. On account of the same, the informant had filed case under Atrocities Act against the appellant. He had also given threats to the witness Zaker and Ashwini from the said case and they had also lodged FIR against him. He had threatened Anusuya to withdraw the case and she had filed report to that effect. The informant was in habit of filing false cases by misusing his caste. The FIR is mala fide and it is filed only to harass the appellant and his sister Anusuya. Shri. Deshmukh relied on para 56 of the judgment in Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan vs. State of Maharashtra reported in MANU/SC/0275/2018 : 2018 (6) SCC 454 wherein it is held that, when the complaint filed is mala fide, motivated and false, the bar u/s. 18 of the SC & ST Act is not attracted and this Court has power to grant anticipatory bail.
4. Per contra, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and learned advocate for the respondent No. 3 argued that the FIR shows specific averments specifying the ingredients of offences under SC&ST Act. The informant is belonging to Mahar community which is Scheduled Caste Category and the appellant belongs to Vanjari caste. He was intentionally insulting and humiliating the informant. There are eye witnesses to the incident. The bar u/s. 18 is attracted. Section 18(A) (2) prohibits grant of anticipatory bail in any case notwithstanding any judgment, order or direction.
5. Shri. R.S. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the appellant relied on para 21 in the judgment in Lahu S/o. Vitthalrao Bhosale Vs. The State of Maharashtra and anr. (Cri. Appeal No. 194 of 2019) decided by the Divi........