AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Sri R.D. Pancham, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Chetan Desai, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State.
Petitioners - accused Nos.1 to 3 apprehend their arrest by respondent - Police in respect of the FIR registered by them in their Crime No.54/2017 for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 307 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 (for brevity ''the Act'').
The allegation in the complaint is, on the evening of 4.4.2017 the accused took exception with complainant about his employer abused him filthily by referring to his Holaya community, inflicted blows on him, man handled and attempted to threaten him etc.
Sri R.D. Pancham, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the complainant has not suffered any injury during the incident, in fact it is the complainant who is the victim of the incident. On 4.4.2017 at 9.30 p.m. the complainant of this case along with his employer and two others barged into the shop of the accused snatched his cash bag, assaulted his wife and mother. Having suffered injury during the incident he was admitted to the Government Hospital and his statement was recorded by jurisdictional police on 5.4.2017, and case is registered in Crime No.55/2017 against the complaint of his case and his employer. By that time, the complainant herein had lodged a complaint in Crime No.54/2017, as such he has not suffered any injury.
Learned HCGP while opposing the petition submits that clear averments is made in the complaint in respect of the offence under Section 3 of the Act, by virtue of Section 18 of the said Act petitioners are not entitled for anticipatory bail
From the material placed before the Court, it appears that the real dispute is between the complainant''s employer Pradeep and the 1st petitioner. Considering the fact that there is no material to prove the allegation of overt act leading to any injury on the body of the complainant, the possibility of both parties blowing out of proportion over a trivial matter cannot be ruled out.
In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of VILAS PANDURANG PAWAR AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS reported in [ (2012) 8 SCC 795] the Court is required to examine from the material borne on record whether the offence under Section 3 of the Act has been prima facie made out. From the circumstances, explained it cannot be said that prima facie case under the Act is made out against the petitioners barring the remedy under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
In the circumstances, there is no impediment to allow the petition. The petitioners are granted anticipatory bail in Crime No.54/2017 registered by the respondent Police, for a period of three weeks subject to the following conditions :-
a. They shall forthwith surrender before the concerned Court and move for bail. Till disposal of their bail petition, this order will be in force. In the event of their arrest by the respondent - Investigating Officer in respect of the above case within above said period, they shall be released on bail on executing a self bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- each with one surety for the likesum.
b. They shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation.
In view of disposal of the petition itself, I.A.No.1/2017 does not survive for consideration, it is accordingly disposed of.