1 Cri.A.2196.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2196 OF 2011 Ramnarayan Motilal Nawandar, Age : 55 Years, Occup.: Agril. And business, R/o Akhilesh Nagar, Gangapur, Tq. Gangapur, District Aurangabad. ...APPLICANT. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, and another. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri.Ravindra V.Gore, Advocate for Applicant. Shri.G.R.Ingole, A.P.P. for Respondent-State. Shri. Yuvraj V.Kakade,Advocate for Original Complainant. ... CORAM: T.V.NALAWADE, J. DATE : 8th JUNE, 2011. PER COURT : 1. This application is filed under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in Crime No.09 of 2011, registered with Gangapur Police Station, Tq. Gangapur, District Aurangabad, for the offence punishable under section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 2 Cri.A.2196.11 2. Papers of investigation are made available by the learned APP. Both sides are heard. 3. Advocate for the applicant submitted that applicant has Civil dispute with one Sanjay Jadhav against whom Regular Civil Suit No. 269 of 2010, is filed in the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division, Gangapur. The relief of injunction preventing said Sanjay Jadhav from alienating the suit property, is granted. He submitted that original complainant belongs to Congress party and he is a councillor of Municipal Council, Gangapur. He further submitted that Sanjay Jadhav is Taluqa President of Congress party and a false complaint is filed against the applicant at his instance. He also pointed out that one Raosaheb Kale, whose statement is recorded, has stated that he works with Sanjay Jadhav. 4. Papers of the investigation show that incident took place on 17.04.2011 at about 10.00 a. m. The complainant came across the accused on public road and he demanded an amount of Rs. 4660/-(Rupees Four Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty only), which was due from the accused. It is contended that complainant was working as Hamal(Labour) in the shop of the accused in past and in respect of the work done in the shop, the complainant was in dues of this amount. Allegations are made that when 3 Cri.A.2196.11 he insisted to make payment, accused started giving abuses, then he abused the complainant by taking name and caste of complainant viz ekaxVs- ekax It is contended that one Mr. Krishna Patil who was passing by the road stopped after hearing quarrel and in presence of Mr. Krishna Patil also present accused/applicant repeated the abuses. 5. It is submitted by the advocate for the applicant that the report was not immediately filed on 17.04.2011 and it was given on next day and this delay shows that everything is concocted. When query was made, advocate for the applicant stated that accused is not admitting that the complainant was working in the shop of the accused in the past. Advocate of the applicant, relying on the copy of the order made by this Court, in Criminal Application NO. 1307 of 2011, submitted that even when there was material against the applicant this Court granted anticipatory bail to the accused in that case. This conduct of the advocate for the applicant is not proper and it is brought to the notice of the advocate that there cannot be precedent in respect of bail order. Approach of the advocate was that this Court is bound to give relief to the present applicant, as is given by this Court to the applicant in Criminal Application No.1307 of 2011. 6. The aforesaid record is sufficient to make out prima facie case 4 Cri.A.2196.11 against the applicant for the offence punishable under section 3(1)(X) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Some record used by the applicant is not sufficient to infer that false allegations are made. It is submitted that it is not probable that the person like accused would give any abuse by taking name of his caste to councilor. Such submission cannot be accepted at this stage. There are still persons in the society, who believe in and who practice the caste system. Even, if the persons of the Scheduled Caste acquire higher positions on their competence, their post and competence are not respected by persons who practice caste system. To protect the persons of the backward class from Atrocities and conduct of such persons, the Act is made. So, on the basis of such submission no relief can be granted to the applicant. This case is not fit case for granting anticipatory bail and hence the application stands rejected. 7. Request of the advocate for the applicant for continuation of interim protection, is refused. Sd/- [ T.V.NALAWADE, J.] MTK 5 Cri.A.2196.11