1 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL NO.2198, 2199 and 2200 OF 2009 Tanaji Shivaji Ghadge & others Applicants in Appln no.2198 of 2009 Sou Savitra Tanaji Ghadge & others Applicants in Appln No.2l99 of 2009 Tanaji Shivaji Ghadge & others Applicants in Appln no.2200 of 2009 -versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents Shri.Purshottam G Chavan, for the applicants. Smt Usha V Kejariwal, APP for the state. CORAM: R. G. KETKAR J (Vacation Judge) DATED: 19th May, 2009 2 P.C. 1. By these applications, the applicants are seeking anticipatory bail in connection with CR No.93 of 2009 dated April 3, 2009, registered with Pandharpur Taluka Police Station, Pandharpur, for offence u/s 3(1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), l989, u/s l43, l47, l48, l49, 436, 504 Indian Penal Code (for short called as “IPC”) and section 7 (l) (d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act. 2. Since the common issues are involved in all the applications, they are heard and disposed of by this common order. 3. In support of the application Mr.Purshottam G. Chavan, learned counsel for the applicant, strenuously contended that no offence is made out under the provisions of section 3(l) (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act, l989, u/s l43, l47, l48, l49, 436, 504 IPC and section 7 (l) (d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act. In fact the applicants are falsely implicated only as counter blast as they had lodged FIR against the 3 complainant. He invited my attention to FIR NO.88 of 2009 dated April 2, 2009, lodged by Tanaji Ghadage at about l7.45 pm u/s 395, 397 IPC in respect of incident of March 28, 2009 against family members of Ms.Meerabai Prakshale. 4. Ms.Meerabai Prakshale had lodged FIR No.89 of 2009 on April, 2, 2009 at l8.l5 hrs u/s l43, l47, l448, l49, 324, 379, 506 IPC as also section 3(l) (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Attrocities) Act, 1989, u/s 7 (l) (d) of Protection of Civil Rights Act. He also pointed out that on the very next day, Dhanaji Shivaji Ghadage, had lodged FIR No.90 of 2009 on April 3, 2009, u/s 307, 326, 324, 147, to l49, 436, 323, 504, 506, 427 IPC, and also under Bombay Police Act. One Sunil Murlidhar Prakshale, lodged present complaint, registered as FIR No. 93 of 2009 on April, 3, 2009 at about 5.00 pm. He, therefore, strenuously contended that the applicants have been falsely implicated only as counter blast. 5. In support of the applications, learned counsel also invited my attention to the judgment of this Court in 4 Criminal Application No.2054 of 2008 dated July l6, 2008, in case of Shashikant Ramhari Tambe and ors -vs- The State of Maharashtra, 2008 (6) ABR (NOC) 989 (BOM), to contend that no specific accusation have been alleged against each of the accused and in the FIR omnibus statement that all the accused persons uttered allegedly humiliating words has been made. Consequently they are entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 6. The learned counsel for the applicant further invited my attention to the judgment in the case of Gowardhan Mohite -vs- State of Maharashtra , 2005 ALL MR (Cri) 1223, to contend that it is necessary for the prosecution to establish that the accused has intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe within public view. He also relied upon the judgment of this Court in case of Balu B Galande -vs- State of Maharashtra & anr 2006 (6) AIR Bom R. 25l, to contend that essential ingredients of offence u/s 3 (l) (x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Attrocities), l989, are that victim 5 should have been insulted within public view. In the instant FIR, perusal and recitals indicate that they were not insulted within the public view and hence offence u/s 3 (l) (x) cannot be registered against them. 7. On the other hand Ms. Usha V.Kejariwal, learned APP for the respondent state, submitted that perusal of FIR No.93 of 2009, clearly indicates the role of each of the applicant and prima facie commission of offence alleged against them. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the record of the case and it appears that there is serious dispute among the parties and complaints and cross complaints are lodged against them. The applications made by the applicants were rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur. While rejecting the applications, learned Judge recorded that informant has mentioned the names of the accused person who are alleged to have uttered abusive words by referring to castes and consequently it cannot be said that omnibus allegations are made. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, in my opinion, no case for enlarging the 6 applicants on anticipatory bail is made out. The applications are accordingly dismissed. (R.G. KETKAR, J)