1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3004 /2009 (Pramod Pralhad Shinde vs. The State of Maharashtra ) ..................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................................................................... Mr. S P Bhandarkar, Adv. for applicant Mr C N Adgokar, ,APP for Respondent Mr M P Gulhane, Adv.h/for Mr V A Kothale, for Respondent no.2 .......... CORAM : A.P.BHANGALE, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 5, 2010. Heard respective counsel for respective parties, at length. 2 By way of this application, the applicant prays for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted in favour of non-applicant no.2. It appears that in respect of Crime No. 3064/2009 reported under section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ( in short “the Act of 1989”) read with section 504 and 506 of IPC. Previously, interim anticipatory bail was granted by order dated 21.1.2009 in favour of the non-applicant no.2 -Anand N Ingle vide order below Misc. Cri.Appln. No. 278/2009 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Akola on 21.1.2009. The said interim order was confirmed at the time of final hearing on 20th June, 2009 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Akola. Thus, Misc.Cri. Appln. No. 278/ 2009 2 was disposed of. 3 It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that in view of Section 18 of the Act of 1989 anticipatory bail could not have been granted and, therefore, it ought to be cancelled for the simple reason that the such an order was prohibited in the relevant law. It was further submitted that the order passed granting anticipatory bail was without jurisdiction of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge and, as such, non-est as he could not have any power to exercise jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C. He further contended that if anticipatory bail is granted in cases reported under the Act of 1989, the Section 18 of the Act may become redundant. Hence he prayed for cancellation of anticipatory bail which was granted by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Akola. 4 Per contra, learned APP do not agree with the contentions advanced on behalf of the applicant. He under instructions from the concerned Investigating Officer, submitted that it is not thought necessary to file an affidavit or reply. According to the I.O. considering the the fact that the accused is in twilight of his life ( 72 years) as also the fact that no criminal antecedent against him at the Civil Lines, City Police Station, Akola no reply is filed on behalf of non-applicant no.2. 5 After perusal of the order sought to be challenged, it does appear that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Akola appears to have satisfied himself that earlier also complaint was made some time in December 3 2008 and during investigation it was revealed that no offence under the Act of 1989 was made out. On the same ground, complainant filed similar complaint on 14.4.2009. Thus, there was doubt expressed as to whether the complaint is genuine and, therefore, interim pre-arrest bail was granted, which was confirmed finally on 20th June,2009, on the ground that possibility of false accusation cannot be ruled out and, as such, bar u/s 18 of the Act of 1989 would not be attracted. 6 It is true that if accusations are genuine and prima facie appears substantial, then benefit of anticipatory bail cannot be granted in favour of the accused facing such serious accusations under the Act of 1989 in the larger interest of society. However if very question of applicability of the Act or genuineness of the accusation is raised and learned Sessions Judge concerned finds prima facie that such accusations may not be believed on the ground of possibility of false implication, in such cases, prohibition contained in Sec. 18 of the Act of 1989 cannot be converted into an instrument of oppression as Sec. 18 of the Act cannot be put on high pedestal than personal liberty enshrined under Art.21 of the Constitution of India. 7 Under these circumstances, there is no overwhelming or cogent, proximate and pertinent ground so as to cancel the anticipatory bail as it cannot be said that it was granted in a casual, cursory and callous manner, that too without considering the merits of the 4 case. Application is rejected. JUDGE sahare