1applns-2501-10-2502-10 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION No. 2501/2010 And CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION No. 2502/2010 Rupesh Ram Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. Court’s or Judge’s orders Mr S. B . Patil, for the Applicant in both the applications. Mr Y. M. Nakhawa, A.P.P.for the State. CORAM:- A.R. JOSHI, J. DATE :- 18TH JUNE, 2010. P.C.:- 1. Heard rival submissions in both the criminal applications preferred by the same applicant for anticipatory bail in two different crimes bearing CR No. I-171/2009 and I-177/2009 respectively registered with Mumbra Police Station District Thane. In C.R.No.I-171-2009 the offences alleged against the applicant are punishable under Sections 142, 143, 146, 147, 149 of I.P.C.and Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred as “Prevention of Atrocities Act” for short) and in Cr.No.I-177/2009 the offences alleged against the applicant are punishable under 2applns-2501-10-2502-10 Sections 392, 394, 452, 323, 34 of I.P.C.and Section 3 (1) (x) of the Prevention of Atrocities Act. 2. Apparently, there is bar under Section 18 of the Prevention of Atrocities Act for entertaining the anticipatory bail application and prima facie there is nothing to accept the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicant that provisions of section 3 (1) (x) do not apply in the present matters. 3. Learned Advocate for the applicant argued that the caste of the present applicant is not mentioned in the F.I.R. in both the matters. However, that is not the requirement of law as said issue has already been decided by the Full Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2009 (2) Bom. C.R. (Cri.) 32 (Pushpa Vijay Bonde vs. State of Maharashtra). As such there is no substance in this argument as to prima facie non applicability of provisions of the Prevention of Atrocities Act. 4. Learned A.P.P.,on instructions, submits that charge sheets in both the cases have already been filed before the appropriate Court and the matters are seized with the said Court. 5. In view of above there is nothing to entertain both the anticipatory bail applications so as to grant any discretionary relief. In the result both the applications are hereby rejected and disposed of accordingly. (A.R.JOSHI,J) 3applns-2501-10-2502-10