1 Cri-A-5711-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5711 OF 2010 Sambhaji Madhukar Chavan ... Applicant Vs The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents Mr. S.A.Sawant,Advocate, for the applicant. Ms. P.P. Shinde, APP, for the respondent No.1 State. Mr. Rahul S.Kate, Advocate, for respondent No.2. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 25th January, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant. 2. The applicant had filed a report with Walchandnagar Police Station, Taluka Indapur, on 20.10.2010 alleging that respondent No.2/accused, who was a Talathi of the Village, had abused and scolded by calling him "Mahardya" and had also slapped. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati granted anticipatory bail by order dated 30.10.2010. One of the grounds for grant of the anticipatory bail was that the complainant had not disclosed the caste of the accused in the FIR. For this purpose, he relied upon three authorities i.e. Pravin s/o. Shrimant Bhutekar vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. 2010 ALL MR (Cri.) 1223 (Bom.), Ms. Subhadra Sushil Anand & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra, 2 Cri-A-5711-10.sxw 2007 ALL MR (Cri.) 3193 and Bibhishan s/o. Maruti Anarse & Anr. vs. state of Maharashtra & Ors. 2007 ALL MR (Cri.) 194. 3. The learned Counsel for the applicant points out that the Division Bench of this Court in Pushpa Vijay Bonde vs. State of Maharahtra 2009 (2) Bom.C.R.(Cri.) 32 held that it is not required that the complainant should disclose the caste of the accused in the complaint and it is open to the accused to bring to the notice of the Court that material does not show that the accused was not belonging to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Similar view has been taken by the Supreme Court in Ashabai Machindra Adhagale vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2009 DGLS (Soft.) 179. It appears that the Full Bench Judgment of this Court and the authority of the Supreme Court were not brought to the notice of the Additional Sessions Judge. Even though it can be said that the view taken by the trial Court that anticipatory bail can be granted because the caste was not disclosed is not correct, but at the same time, fact remains that the report of the incident was lodged 35 days after the incident and that itself could be a good ground for granting anticipatory bail. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere. Application stands rejected. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)