1 Criminal Application No.956/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.956 OF 2011 Shaikh Imran s/o Shaikh Nasir ... APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & anr. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri P.M. Gaikwad, Advocate for applicant Shri K.M. Suryawanshi, A.P.P. for respondent No.1. Shri N.L. Jadhav, Advocate for respondent No.2. ..... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 4th May, 2011 PER COURT : 1. Heard finally. The accused/ applicant, seeks pre- arrest bail in Crime No.23/2011, of Chhavani Police Station for an offence under Sections 447, 143, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(5)(6) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2 Criminal Application No.956/2011 2. The learned counsel in detail pointed that the F.I.R. of the complainant Bhikaji is containing falsehood. No event in the manner has been projected, has taken place. Purchase of the agricultural property belonging to his father from Gat No.81 was during the lifetime of his father as the father expired on 4.7.2001. Counsel submits, that the accused/ applicant is businessman, least concerned with any illegality, no criminal record and no event of abusing the complainant in the name of his caste has taken place. 3. Basically, Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act inhibits entertaining application in terms of Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This has been more clarified by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the reported judgment in the matter of State of M.P. & anr. Vs. Ram Kishna Balothia & anr. (AIR 1995 SC 1198). No situation, to take away the mandatory bracket of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act shown reflecting in the F.I.R. The transaction is claimed to be of civil nature of purchasing property. It has different colour and shade, however, this is not the occasion to advert. 4. Learned A.P.P. informs that the accused/ applicant 3 Criminal Application No.956/2011 Shaikh Imran has two earlier cases against him, bearing Crime No.3054/2009 under Sections 4, 25 of the Arms Act and Crime No.323/2010, under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 427of the Indian Penal Code. The threat perception to complainant and violent situation created by applicant need not be further generated. 4. Considering all the above aspects, no case to entertain pre-arrest bail. Application lacks merits, rejected and finally disposed of. K.U. CHANDIWAL JUDGE fmp/cri956.11