..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2054 OF 2008 1. Shashikant Ramhari Tambe, 2. Ramhari Keru Tambe, 3. Sou.Prabhavati Shashikant Tambe, 4. Hanumant Shivdas Deokar, 5. Sou.Rajubai Mahadeo Kamble, & 6. Sou.Garjabai Shivdas Deokar. ..Applicants. Versus The State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent. .... Mr.Jaydeep D. Mane, Adv. for the Applicants. Mr.H.J.Dedia, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 16th July, 2008. DATED : 16th July, 2008. DATED : 16th July, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the applicants and the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant are seeking anticipatory bail in C.R.No.78 of 2008 of Kurduwadi police station. The said case is under Sections 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 3. The case of the complainant is that on 19.5.2008 at about 2:00 p.m. one Sou.Prabhavati ..(2).. Tambe came and abused her with reference to her caste. Thereafter she went away. Thereafter at 6:30 p.m., seven persons including the applicants came to the field of the complainant and from a distance, all of them abused her with reference to her caste. It is also stated that one other accused Hanumant assaulted her at that time. No injury certificate has been produced by the prosecution. 4. The FIR has been lodged on 27.5.2008 i.e. one week after the incident. There is inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. No explanation for the delay has been given by the complainant. This delay raises grave doubt in the mind regarding the veracity of the complainant. Moreover, on perusal of the complaint, it is seen that the complainant has made general allegations against all the seven accused persons that they abused her with reference to her caste. 5. Useful reference may be made to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mukesh Kumar Saini Mukesh Kumar Saini Mukesh Kumar Saini Vs. State (Delhi Administration) Vs. State (Delhi Administration) Vs. State (Delhi Administration) reported in 2002 2002 2002 ALL MR (Cri) JOURNAL 41 ALL MR (Cri) JOURNAL 41 ALL MR (Cri) JOURNAL 41 In the said case, it was observed that there must be specific accusation alleged against each of the accused and Section 34 of ..(3).. the Indian Penal Code cannot be pressed into service. Omnibus statement that all the accused persons uttered allegedly humiliating word may not be enough. In the present case there is no specific accusation alleged against each of the accused. Looking to the above facts, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants. 6. In the event of arrest, the applicants - Shashikant Ramhari Tambe, Ramhari Keru Tambe, Sou.Prabhavati Shashikant Tambe, Hanumant Shivdas Deokar, Sou.Rajubai Mahadeo Kamble, & Sou.Garjabai Shivdas Deokar, to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.20,000/- each with one or two sureties to make up the said amount. The applicants shall report to Kurduwadi police station, as and when required. 7. Criminal Application is disposed of accordingly. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)