1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 231 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1403 OF 2009 Sudhakar Suradkar ...Applicant vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.H.S. Venegavkar i/b. Suvarna Pratap for the Applicant. Mr.D.P. Adsule, APP for the State. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : JUNE 12, 2009 P.C. :- 1 Heard Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and APP for the State. 2 This application has been filed by the applicant for recalling order dated 25th March, 2009 passed by this Court in Criminal Application No. 1403/2009 and in the alternative, to modify its order dated 25th March, 2009 by expunging the observations in para 6 of the said order. This Court 2 in Criminal Application No.1403/2009 was pleased to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants therein. 3 A complaint was registered against the applicants under Sections 3(1)(viii) and 3(2)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and also under Sections 120B, 34 of the IPC. This Court after going through the FIR which was registered by the complainant and after perusal of the material which was produced before me was pleased to hold that prima facie provisions of the Atrocities Act were not applicable and therefore, by relying on the judgment in Ramchandra Govindrao Watkar s case reported in 1995(2) Mh.L.J. 669 was pleased to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants therein. 4 The learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that after the order was passed relying on the observations made by this court, a letter was written by the original accused to the Deputy 3 Commissioner of Police, Zone-II, Nagpada dated 2nd April, 2009 in which the observations made by this Court in the said case was quoted and the Deputy Commissioner of Police was asked to close the case in the said matter. The learned Counsel submitted that therefore, the said observations made by this Court in the anticipatory bail application may be expunged or withdrawn. 5 In my view, it is not necessary to expunge the observations made by this Court in the said order since these observations obviously are of prima facie nature and have been made for the purpose of deciding the application for anticipatory bail. It is, however, clarified that the lower courts or the concerned authorities shall not be influenced by these observations and shall decide the case, in accordance with law. 6 It was then submitted that in para 6 of the order, an observation has been made that the 4 provisions of Section 3(1)(ix) of the Atrocities Act are not attracted. It is submitted that in fact, the complaint was filed under Sections 3(1)(viii), 3(1) (ix) and 3(2)(ii) of the Atrocities Act. It was submitted that therefore, this fact was not brought to the notice of this Court. This submission cannot be accepted since after going through the complaint and the material on record, the aforesaid observations have been made. In para 2 of the order, I have clearly noted that the complaint had been filed under Sections 3(1)(viii) and 3(2)(ii) also of the said Act. It appears that in para 6, inadvertently, Section 3(1)(ix) has been quoted. No case, therefore, is made out for recalling order dated 25.3.2009. 8 The application, accordingly, is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE, J.)