IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1384 OF 2009 Mrs. Suranjit R. Shah ...Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent --- Shri Kiran Jain and Company for Applicant Shri D.P. Adsule, APP for State ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED 24TH MARCH, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant and the Learned APP for the State. 2. The Applicant has an apprehension that she may be arrested in connection with an offence which is registered with D.B. Marg Police Station on a complaint filed by Mrs. Usha Ashok Hankare for the offence punishable under section 3 (x) of the Atrocities Act and also under sections 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code. It is the case of the Applicant that her husband was tenant of the said premises and he had given the said room to Mr. Ashok Hankare who was residing there as a sub-tenant. The Applicant's husband, however, died about 1 and ½ years back and, therefore, she was collecting rent from the Complainant. 3. A complaint came to be lodged on 16th March, 2009 and FIR was registered on 21st March, 2009. In the complaint, it was alleged that one person visited the premises and later on she came to know that the said person wanted the said premises. It is submitted that Mrs. Shah, the Applicant herein told her that the purchaser would pay Rs.20 lacs out of Rs.10 lacs would be paid to the Complainant and that she should vacate the premises. It is further alleged that on 9th March, 2009 in the afternoon at 2.00 p.m., the Applicant visited the premises and threatened that if she did not vacate the said premises, her belongings will be thrown on the street and that she insulted her on name of her caste. It is submitted that in the complaint the complainant made a statement that she belongs to scheduled caste and that the Applicant belongs to a higher class. In the complaint, however, it is stated that when the said threat was given, there was no one nearby and the said threat was given in the house. An offence is, therefore, registered under section 3 (1) (v) (x) and (xv) r/w. sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. In my view, prima facie case is made out by the Applicant for grant of bail. I have perused the complaint, copy of which was given by the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State. In my view, the provisions of section 3 (1) (v) (x) (xv) are not attracted even if the averment in the said complaint is taken to be true. In the present case, the Complainant has not been wrongfully dispossessed from her land or premises. There is no allegation of interference with the enjoyment of her right over any land or premises. Similarly, the said alleged insult or intimidation has not been made in any public place or within public view. Since, admittedly, the said threat was given in the house when no one was present. Therefore, provisions of section 3(1) (x) are not attracted. Similarly, provisions of section 3 (1) (xv) are also not attracted since the Complainant is still residing in the said premises. In the case of Ramchandra Govindrao Watkar reported in 1995 (2) MLJ 669, this Court has held that though provisions of section 438 are not attracted, in the event, the complaint filed under the provisions of the said Act, yet the Court has right to peruse the complaint and to see whether the provisions of Atrocities Act were attracted on reading the complaint and if, it is found that the said provisions are not attracted then, in that event, an application under section 438 is to be still maintainable in this Court. 5. Prima facie in my view, therefore, provisions of Atrocities Act cannot be attracted and, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Applicant is entitled to get an order of anticipatory bail from this Court. 6. Even otherwise, if the complaint is perused as a whole, it appears that there is a dispute between the Applicant and the Complainant who is a sub-tenant or licensee in the said premises, possibility committed of the Complainant making a false allegation against the present Applicant also cannot be ruled out. In any event, custodial interrogation of the Applicant is not necessary. 7. Under these circumstances, in the event of the Applicant's arrest in connection with C.R. No.63 of 200, an offence which is registered with D.B. Marg Police Station vide C.R. No.63 of 2009 filed by Mrs. Usha Ashok Hankare for the offences punishable under section 3 (x) of the Atrocities Act and also under sections 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, she shall be released on bail in a sum of Rs.5,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. The Applicant, however, shall co-operate with the police and she shall report to the concerned police station, as and when called. The police shall, however, call the Applicant only between 11 a.m. & 2 p.m. If any complaint is received from the Complainant, liberty is given to the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail. 8. It is clarified that the observations made by this Court while passing this order are prima facie in nature and the Trial court shall not be influenced these observations while considering this case on merits. 9. Application is disposed of. V.M. KANADE J.