LexVILAS PANDURANG PAWAR & ANR. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2012] 8 S.C.R. 270 VILAS PANDURANG PAWAR & ANR. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. (SLP (Crl.) No. 6432 of 2012) SEPTEMBER 10, 2012 [P. SATHASIVAM AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 438 - Anticipatory bail - Entitlement - To the accused charged with C offences under /PC with provisions under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Held: s. 18 of the Act creates a bar invoking s. 438 - When an offence is registered under provisions of the Act, no court shall entertain anticipatory bail, unless it prima facie finds that D such an offence is not made out - In view of the averments in the complaint in the present case, s. 18 is applicable - Hence, accused not entitled to anticipatory bail - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tnbes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - ss. 3(1) and 18 - Penal Code, 1860 - Ball. E The question for consideration in the present petition was whether an accused charged with various offences under IPC along with the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is entitled for anticipatory bail under F Section 438 Cr.P.C. Dismissing the petition, the Court HELD: 1. Section 18 of Scheduled Castes and G Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 creates a bar for invoking Section 438 Cr.P.C. However, a duty is cast on the court to verify the averments in the complaint and to find out whether an offence u/s. 3(1) of the Act has been prima facie made out In other words, if H 270 VILAS PANDURANG PAWAR v. STATE OF 271 MAHARASHTRA there is a specific averment in the complaint, namely, A insult or intimidation with intenf to humiliate by calling with caste name, the accused persons are not entitled to anticipatory bail. When an offence is registered against a person under the provisions of the Act, no Court shall entertain application for anticipatory bail, unless it prima B facie finds that such an offence is not made out. Moreover, while considering the application for bail, scope for appreciation of evidence and other material on record is limited. Court is not expected to indulge in critical analysis of the evidence on record. When a c provision has been enacted in the Special Act to protect the persons who belong to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and a bar has been imposed in granting bail u/s. 438 Cr.P.C., the provision in the Special Act cannot be easily brushed aside by elaborate 0 discussion on the evidence. [Paras 8 and 9] [276-E-H; 277-A-8] 2. In the complaint, the complainant has specifically averred that she and her family members were insulted by the petitioners by mentioning her caste and also E assaulted them by saying "Beat the Mahar so that, they should not live in the village." In the light of the specific averments in the complaint made by the complainant- respondent No.3, Section 18 of the Act is applicable to the case on hand and in view of the same, the petitioners F are not entitled to anticipatory bail u/s. 438 Cr.P.C. [Paras 6 and 12] [27 4-A-8; 277-F-G] Dr. R.K. Sangwan and Anr. vs. State 2009 (112) ORJ 473(08); Ramesh Prasad Bhanja and Ors. vs. State of Orissa G 1996 Cri. L.J. 2743 - referred to. Case Law Reference: 2009 (112) ORJ 473(08) Referred to Para 10 H A 272 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 8 S.C.R. 1996 Cri. L.J. 2743 Referred to Para 10 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 6432 of 2012. From the Judgment & Order dated 19.07.2012 of the High B Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad in Criminal Application No. 3012 of 2012. c Dilip Annasaheb Taur, Anil Kumar for the Appellants. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. The short question to be decided in this petition is whether an accused charged with various offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') along with the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the D Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short 'the SC/ST Act') is entitled for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code'). E 2. In the complaint filed by Savita Madhav Akhade - Respondent No.3 herein, it has been alleged that she has been residing with her family members at Khandeshwari, Taluq Karjat, Ahmednagar, Maharashtra and earning their livelihood from agricultural work. It is furthe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.