1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.499 OF 2010 1. Abhiman S/o.Trimbak Pawar, Age-48 years, Occu-Service as Police Inspector, R/o.Police Station, Kannad, Tq.Kannad, Dist. Aurangabad 2. Prabhakar S/o.Pundlik Shelke, Age-58 years, Occu-Service as Dy.S.P. R/o.S.D.P.O. Police Headquarter (Rural) T.V.Centre, Aurangabad 3. Raosaheb S/o.Raibhan Borade, Age-45 years, Occu-Service as Police Naik, R/o.Police Station, Bidkin, Tq.Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad 4. Prabhakar S/o.Parshuram Rathod, Age-48 years, Occu-Service as P.H.C. R/o.Police Station, Bidkin, Tq.Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad APPLICANTS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Superintendent of Police Aurangabad, Tq. and Dist. Aurangabad RESPONDENTS Smt.S.S.Jadhav, learned counsel for applicants. Mr.N.B.Patil, learned APP for respondent State. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 10/02/2010 2 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicants have approached this Court for their release on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in connection with case registered vide Crime (M-Case) No. 1/10, registered in Bidkin Police Station of Aurangabad for the alleged offence punishable u/s3(1)(9) of SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act and section 7(1)(3) of The Protection of Civil Rights Act. 2. Heard learned counsel for applicants followed by the submissions of learned APP and learned counsel appearing for original complainant, who is assisting to learned APP. 3. It appears that the said offence came to be registered on the basis of private complaint alleged in the court of J.M.F.C. Paithan, which was numbered as OMA 17/2010 about the incident occurred as enumerated in the complaint during the period 11/10/2007 to 06/08/2008 for which the private complaint came to be lodged on 14/01/2010, in which order of investigation was passed u/s.156(3) of The Cr.P.C. 4. During the course of submissions across the bar, learned counsel appearing for the applicants has taken me through all the contentions raised in the complaint, particularly in para no.2,3 and 4 coupled with the action initiated at the hands of these applicants against the complainant. Under Chapter 4 of The IPC vide section 76 to 87, certain exceptions are provided in case the actions are taken 3 while discharging the official duty by the public servants in the course of performance of their duties. After going through the entire complaint, it appears that it is the main grudge of the complainant that un-necessary he was penalised by giving notices and warnings as well as his increment also stopped, and certain fine was imposed on him. It is his grievance that considering his cast and his entire career is un-blamished, at the hands of first applicant to whom, the remaining applicants assisted, certain strictures were passed against him and for which memos were issued to him. The compilation which was furnished to me is with the list of memos which were issued at the hands of first applicant, which shows that these memos are not only issued to the complainant but also to the 4th applicant, who is arrayed as accused no.4 in the said private complaint. Clear perusal of that list of the persons, to whom memos were issued indicate that the memos were issued to all the persons who have committed error while discharging their duties. If it is so, it can not be said that there was discrimination at the hands of first applicant. As regards, the allegation against the second applicant about the incident dated 10/11/2007 are concerned, the record is produced that the second applicant was not on duty at all. Even though it was vehemently urged by the learned APP that considering the grievance about the complainant that they have filed complaints against their superior officers, their custodial interrogation is necessary. 5. It appears that this filing of the criminal complaint against the officers, is nothing but an attempt to pressurize them and not to 4 allow to perform their duties properly. In view of this aspect, even though it is urged that there is bar u/s. 18 of The Atrocities Act to grant the anticipatory bail, but at the same time, considering the allegations against accused/proposed accused/ the persons who are arrayed as an accused, if there is room for doubt about the genuineness of the accusation therein, in such exceptional case, extra-ordinary powers to be exercised to grant the anticipatory bail. 6. Considering this aspect, and considering the overall effect of the submissions across the bar, as well as on perusal of the papers, this is a fit case where discretion to be exercised u/s. 438 of The Cr.P.C. In the premise, following is the order : O R D E R 1. Application is allowed. 2. In the event of arrest of applicants in connection with Crime No.M-01/10, registered in Bidkin Police Station, Aurangabad, they be released on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.15,000/- each and on executing PR bond in the like amount. 3. Application stands disposed of accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/FEB 2010/cri.appl.499-10