Bombay High Court Grants Pre-Arrest Bail To Chairman Habib Group Trusts In SC/ST Act Case

Ruling that the bar on granting anticipatory bail in cases under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act won’t apply as the allegations against him appear to be motivated and an afterthought, the Bombay High Court granted pre-arrest bail to Chairman of Habib Group Trusts Mumbai Javed Shroff, who has been accused of sexual harassment and using casteist slurs against a teacher employed with the trust. The bar under section 18A of the SC/ST act becomes applicable only once a prima facie case is established under Section 3(i) of the Act. The Dongri police has booked Shroff for offences under Sections 354-A, 504, 506, 509 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(W)(I)(II) of SC/ST Act. A division bench of Justices AS Gadkari and Prakash Naik found unexplained delay in filing the FIR and the allegations to be vague. “…We are of the opinion that apparently the allegations in FIR are an afterthought and concocted. The allegations are motivated. The complaint was lodged belatedly. The allegations are vague. The period of occurrences is not specified. Hence, the bar under Section 18 would not be attracted in the present case. For the reasons stated hereinabove, this appeal deserves to be allowed." According to the prosecution’s case, the complainant belongs to the Boudha community and Scheduled Caste and joined the trust in 2012. She worked as a primary school teacher before the pandemic and as a coordinator during the pandemic. She alleged that Shroff, who took charge in 2019, made her report to work in the hospital associated with the trust, abused her and made her work late hours. Two other teachers also testified to this harassment, she said. She accused him of obscene gestures and demanding sexual favours. Advocate Yusuf Iqbal Yusuf for the applicant submitted that vague allegations were made in the FIR. Considering the first incident occurred in August 2017, the FIR was registered after a period of over 5 years. The complainant's interview published in one of the newspapers was contrary to a case in court, he said. He further argued that action had to be taken against the complainant as complaints were received from the Education department and a committee was appointed to rectify the mistakes. Senior Advocate Raja Thakare for the complainant said that she had suffered greatly at the hands of Shroff and Section 18 prohibits the court from granting anticipatory bail under section 438 of the CrPC. The court agreed with Advocate Yusuf regarding the delay in registration of FIR and about the allegations being vague. It further noted that sexual harassment allegations weren’t made in a complaint of harassment to the police just 10 days prior to the FIR. Prima facie it appears the allegations are an after thought and concocted, the bench observed. The court also found witnesses to be interested witnesses as their services were also terminated. The court relied upon various Supreme Court decisions and said it has been held that unilateral allegations by any individual belonging to any caste cannot be treated as enough to deprive a person of his liberty without an independent scrutiny when such allegations appear to be motivated. It therefore granted pre-arrest bail to Shroff. Case Title: Javed Raza Shroff versus The State of MaharashtraCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 524 Click Here To Read Judgment

Bombay High Court Grants Pre-Arrest Bail To Chairman Habib Group Trusts In SC/ST Act Case

Sharmeen Hakim

Tags