Top
News Updates

Bombay HC Grants Anticipatory Bail To Woman After Holding That FIR Against Her Was An Afterthought

Nitish Kashyap
23 Sep 2017 6:03 AM GMT
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
599+GST
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

The Bombay High Court has granted anticipatory bail to a woman booked under Section 3 (x)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, as it was found that the FIR was registered against her by people against whom she had filed a case of assault five months earlier.

A bench of Justice Ranjit More and Justice Sadhana Jadhav was hearing an anticipatory bail application (ABA) filed by one Mamta Jadhav, who filed an appeal against the order dated July 15, 2017, of the sessions court wherein her ABA was rejected.

Case Background

An incident occurred on February 10, 2017, as a result of which Mamta filed an FIR against the complainant in this case along with three others. She alleged that the all four accused threatened her, outraged her modesty and assaulted her.

An FIR was filed at Dadar Police Station on the same day of the incident for offences punishable under sections 341 (wrongful restraint), 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 323 (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), 506 (criminal intimidation), 114 (abettor present when offence is committed) of the Indian Penal Code.

In respect to the very same incident, the accused filed an FIR against Mamta almost five months later on June 26, 2017, for committing atrocities under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Thus, the court concluded that the FIR against Mamta was an afterthought and decided to allow her application for anticipatory bail.

Next Story