7 March 2022 7:19 AM GMT
The Gujarat High Court has admitted the criminal appeal challenging the quashment of the bail application for offences under Section 323, 332, 504, 506(2) and 114 of IPC and Section 3(2)(5-a) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989. The Bench comprising Justice BN Karia has observed that the Appellant herein had not used any abusive words regarding...
The Gujarat High Court has admitted the criminal appeal challenging the quashment of the bail application for offences under Section 323, 332, 504, 506(2) and 114 of IPC and Section 3(2)(5-a) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989. The Bench comprising Justice BN Karia has observed that the Appellant herein had not used any abusive words regarding the caste of the Complainant and was not aware of the caste of the Complainant, either.
The factual matrix of the case was that the Complainant and another person were present at the sub-station of GEB during night hours and at that time, the lights of the village were cut off. The Appellant called the Complainant to address the same but thereafter, started abusing him. Subsequently, the Appellant along with other three persons came to the station and delivered kicks and blows on the Complainant. The Complainant and the other employee were taken to the hospital.
The Appellant contended that he was falsely roped in the present offence and the ingredients of Section 3(2)(5-a) of the Atrocities Act were not made out. No abusive words were used by the Appellant about the caste of the Complainant. The Appellant had no criminal antecedents either, hence the appeal deserved to be allowed.
Per contra, the Respondents submitted that the Appellant, as a government servant, had committed the offence as established from the contents of the Complaint. Prima facie, he had committed the offence and that no lenient view could be taken by the Court in favour of the Appellant.
Justice Karia, after noting that no abusive words were used, relied on Subhash Kashinath Mahajan Vs. State of Maharashtra 2018(6) SCC 454 wherein it was held that there was no absolute bar against the grant of anticipatory bail in cases under the Atrocities Act if no prima facie case was made out or where on judicial scrutiny the complaint is found to be prima facie mala fide.
Further, in Gorige Pentaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors (2008)12 Supreme Court Cases 531, it was affirmed:
"According to Section 3(i)(x) of the Atrocity Act, the complainant ought to have alleged that the appellant- accused was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, he was intentionally insulted or intimidated by the accused with intent to humiliate in a place within public view."
Since there were no averments or allegations to attract any provisions of the Atrocities Act, the criminal appeal was allowed and accordingly, the decision of the Sessions Judge was set aside. The Appellant was granted anticipatory bail with the bond of INR 10,000 with surety. The High Court confirmed that the Appellant should remain present before the Magistrate on the first date of hearing of the application and on all subsequent occasions as directed by the Magistrate which would amount to judicial custody in the instant case.
Case Title: CHAUDHARY PRAVINBHAI REVABHAI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT
Case No.: R/CR.A/1625/2021
Click Here To Read/Download Order