1 APPLN 4220 OF 2010.sxw vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4220 OF 2010. Sanjay S. Somwanshi .. Applicant -versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Mr K.S. Patil, for the Applicant. Mrs S.D. Shinde, APP for the respondent State. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: 29th September, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. A Head Master of School seeks anticipatory bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with offence punishable under Section 3(1) (x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and section 7(1)d of Protection of Civil Rights Act. The offence has been registered on the report of an Assistant Teacher belonging to the Scheduled Caste. Said Teacher filed report on 28th August, 2010, in respect of incidents dated 10.5.2010 and 11.5.2010. The allegation is that on 10.5.2010, when the applicant was in his chamber, informant Assistant Teacher was abused by the applicant referring to his caste saying that informant’s father 2 APPLN 4220 OF 2010.sxw had filed an application against the applicant to the management. The applicant held the informant by neck. Two persons who were standing outside the door of the chamber, rescued the informant. On 11.5.2010, the informant allegedly went to the chamber of applicant when the applicant again abused him referring to his caste. The informant then consumed poison and was hospitalized till 24.5.2010. The informant’s statement was recorded in the hospital on 23.5.2010 when the informant did not state about caste based abuses. The informant had also written letter to the management on 8.6.2010 in which except mentioning that the applicant was abusing him on the basis of his caste, no specific allegation has been made. 2. In the context of these facts, learned counsel for the applicant submits that first, the incident cannot be said to have taken within public view and as it took place in the chamber of the applicant, therefore section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act, l989 is not at all attracted. 3. Next, he submits that failure of the informant to state about the incidents dated 10.05.2010 and 11.5.2010, in the statement dated 23.5.2010, as well as in the letter to management sent on 8,6.2010, is significant and therefore, the allegations made in the F.I.R. filed almost after 3 and half months of the incidents, may have to be rejected. 3 APPLN 4220 OF 2010.sxw 4. The learned counsel drew my attention to the Judgment of Division Bench of this Court in case of V.P. Shetty -vs- Senior Inspector of Police, reported in 2005 (EQ)(BOM) -0-570, and Santa Shyam Dake -vs- Sr. Police Inspector, reported in 2007 EQ (BOM)-0-1720, relating to quashing of F.I.R., on the ground of the complaint not disclosing all the ingredients of the offence. In the judgment in case of Gowardhan Rambhau Mohite -vs- State of Maharashtra, reported in 2005 EQ (BOM) -0-66, a learned Single Judge of this Court held that delay in lodging the F.I.R., coupled with the fact that there was due deliberation before it was lodged was sufficient for setting aside conviction recorded under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Atrocities Act. 5. Right now I am not considering the question whether FIR ought to be quashed or not. In any case FIR is just the first information of the incident and is not an encyclopedia. It only sets investigating machinery in motion and in course of investigation it is expected to find out relevant information about the incident reported. Based upon such information which investigating officer may collect, complexion of the offence with which the accused may ultimately be charged may change. Therefore, what is mentioned in the FIR or what is not mentioned, may not be a decisive of complicity of the offender or the offence involved. 6. As to the question whether the incident could be stated 4 APPLN 4220 OF 2010.sxw to have taken place in public place within the view, right now one cannot speculate whether the chamber of the applicant was such from which incident could not be viewed by an outsider. The Legislature has in its wisdom used the expression in public view as contrasted within public place deliberately in order to include all the incidents taking place even in private places but in public view. Therefore, since the information given by the informant shows that there were two persons named by him who intervened and rescued him, at this stage, it would not be possible to conclude that the incident did not take place in public view. 7. The learned counsel for the applicant is trying to ask me to enter area of appreciation of evidence when he asks whether the version of the informant can be believed in the context of allegations in the earlier two statements. At this stage it cannot be said that the informant is lying only because in the earlier two statements, caste based abusing is not referred. In view of this though the applicant may have a strong case on merits at trial, in view of the allegations made against applicant, he is not entitled to anticipatory bail in view of bar under Section 18 of the Act. The application is, therefore, rejected. 8. In case applicant seeks regular bail, the observations made in the preceding paragraphs would obviously not be considered by the Trial Court. For deciding whether the applicant 5 APPLN 4220 OF 2010.sxw could be admitted to regular bail he would consider only if the applicant’s being in custody is necessary or not. (R. C. CHAVAN, J.)