AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sandeep N. Bhatt, J
This appeal has been filed by the appellant – State under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to opponent No.1 – original accused by the Additional Sessions and Special Judge, Tapi at Vyara vide order dated 06.08.2022 in Criminal Misc. Application No.303 of 2022.
Heard Mr. Hardik Soni, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
Learned APP has submitted that there were total eight independent eye-witnesses to the incident and the accused had given the threat to the complainant in their presence. He has submitted that the accused had brought in the JCB in front of Buhari market yard and tried to demolish the shops and the cabins of the complainant. He has submitted that the accused had uttered the humiliating words against the caste of the complainant in the public place and in presence of many persons. He has submitted that the accused was creating unnecessary situation to humiliate and had also gave death threats to the complainant. He has also submitted that the offence committed by the accused is punishable under the Atrocity Act and Section 18 of the Act clearly bars the grant of anticipatory bail. He has submitted that the trial Court ought to have rejected the anticipatory bail to opponent no.1 – original accused. He has submitted that this application may be allowed and the anticipatory bail granted by the trial Court to the original accused may be cancelled.
Having heard learned APP for the State and considering the material available on record, this Court is of the prima facie view that the complaint in question seems to be more political, less criminality. Further, the original issue between the complainant and the accused is regarding the encroachment on the gauchar/government land by the complainant, who is a member of the Panchayat. The trial Court has rightly observed the entire circumstances of the case and granted anticipatory bail to the accused, keeping in mind the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of: (i) Pruthviraj Chauhan versus Union of India reported in (2020) 4 SCC 727 and (ii) Subhash Kashinath Mahajan versus State of Maharashtra reported in (2018) 6 SCC 454. Under these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. This appeal therefore deserves to be rejected.
For the reasons recorded above, the present appeal is rejected.