abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3866 OF 2007 Dr.Hanumant Dattatraya Shalgaonkar .. Applicant V/s The State of Maharahstra & Anr .. Respondents Mr.Prashant Naik for the applicant. Mr.K.V. Saste, A.P.P. for the State. Mr.S. Kamble h/f Mr.I.A. Mulla for respondent no.2. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 14TH JANUARY 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant is alleged to have committed an offence under section 3(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (Act No.33 of 1989) [hereinafter referred to as the "Atrocities Act"]. In view of section 18 of the Atrocities Act, section 438 of the Cr.P.C. is not - 2 - applicable to the offence alleged committed under the Atrocities Act. The applicant is therefore not entitled to anticipatory bail. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant, however, submitted that the applicant is entitled to bail in view of the decision of this Court in Ramchandra Govindrao Ramchandra Govindrao Ramchandra Govindrao Watkar v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 1995 (2) Watkar v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 1995 (2) Watkar v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 1995 (2) M.L.J. 669 M.L.J. 669 M.L.J. 669. Therein, this Court has held that if the facts mentioned in the FIR do not disclose the offence under the Atrocities Act, then the prohibition against anticipatory bail prescribed under section 18 of the Atrocities act would not apply. I have perused the FIR dated 13th October 2007, a copy of which is annexed at Exhibit-A to the application. Therein, it is alleged that on 7th August 2007 the applicant insulted the complainant, who belongs to a scheduled caste, with an intent to humiliate him by using words relating to his caste. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the FIR does not disclose commission of an offence under the Atrocities Act. In Ramchandra Govind Watkar (supra), this Court has taken a view that the correctness of the allegations in the FIR is not required to be gone into and the only thing which is required to be seen while considering an application for anticipatory bail is whether the allegations made in the First Information - 3 - Report and available material in the case diary is taken to be true on its face, do constitute an offence under the Atrocities Act or not. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant invited my attention to a judgment of a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in N.B. Gungarakoppa v. State of N.B. Gungarakoppa v. State of N.B. Gungarakoppa v. State of Karnataka, reported in 2002 Cri.L.J. 3311 Karnataka, reported in 2002 Cri.L.J. 3311 Karnataka, reported in 2002 Cri.L.J. 3311 and the judgment of a Single Judge of the Chhattisgarh High Court in Somesh Das v. State of Chhattisgarh, reported Somesh Das v. State of Chhattisgarh, reported Somesh Das v. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in 2004 Cr.L.J. 680 in 2004 Cr.L.J. 680 in 2004 Cr.L.J. 680, and submitted that if the allegations in the complaint are malafide then the court can grant an anticipatory bail. In view of the decision of this Court which has taken a view that the averments made in the complaint must be taken at a face value which is binding on me, the submission cannot be accepted. 5. In the circumstances, in my view, the provisions of section 438 of the Cr.P.C. are not applicable to the facts of this case. The applicant is therefore not entitled to an anticipatory bail. The application is rejected. 6. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are only for the purpose of this application - 4 - and if the applicant applies for bail under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. to the regular court, the same shall be considered on its own merits without in any way being influenced by any of the observations made herein. 7. Application is disposed of. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)