1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1403 OF 2009 1 Vinodkumar V. Kanabar 2 Hemanshu V. Kanabar 3 Jatin V. Kanabar 4 Hitesh A. Kanabar ....Applicants. V/s The State of Maharashtra ....... Respondents Mr. K.H. Holambe Patil for the applicants. Mrs. M.H. Mhatre, APP for the State. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATE : 25th March, 2009 P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicants and the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State. 2. This is an application for anticipatory bail. Applicants apprehend arrest in view of the offence which is registered against the applicants under section 3(1)(viii), 3(1)(ix), 3(2) (ii) of the of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 [For short “Atrocities Act”] and under section 120B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Brief facts are as under:- 4. The complainant in this case is a retired Inspector 2 General of Police. Applicant No.1 herein had filed a complaint against the complainant and two other police officers for the offence punishable under sections 217, 218 and 202 of the Indian Penal Code before 23rd Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Mumbai. In the said complaint, process was issued. Thereafter, a Petition was filed by the complainant in this case for quashing the said complaint. Eventually, that complaint was quashed by this Court on 11/12/1998. After 8 years, the present complaint has filed a complaint, alleging that by filing the said complaint, applicant No.1 herein had caused atrocity to the complainant under section 3(1)(ix) of the Atrocities Act. Applicant No.1 was arrested and was released on bail. Thereafter, the complainant wrote an article on the present applicant No.1. Thereafter the present applicant No.1 filed defamation case against the complainant in Girgaon Court and the learned Metropolitan Magistrate was pleased to issue process for the offence punishable under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, this second complaint has been filed under the Atrocities Act. 5. Counsel for the applicants submit that a bare perusal of the complaint discloses that the ingredients of section 3(1) (ix) of the Atrocities Act are not attracted and, therefore, present application under section 438 of the Cr.P.C for anticipatory bail is maintainable in view of the ratio of the judgment of this Court in the case of Ramchandra Govindrao Watkar reported in 1995(2) Mh.L.J. 669. 3 6. I have perused the complaint. Perusal of the complaint filed by the complainant herein clearly discloses that the offence under the Atrocities Act is not attracted in any case. The applicant No.1 had filed complaint for defamation against the complainant. The process is issued by the learned Magistrate. By no stretch of imagination, this would amount to atrocity within the meaning of section 3(1)(ix) of the Atrocities Act. The other applicants have been cited as witnesses and were examined in the said case. In view of the ratio of the judgment in Watkar's case (supra), in my view, prima facie, provisions of Atrocities Act are not attracted and, therefore, application for anticipatory bail is maintainable. It is obvious that the provisions of Atrocities Act are being used for the purpose of filing false cases against the present applicants, possibly, because applicant No.1 had filed complaint against the present complainant and two Police Officers in 1991. 7. Applicants, therefore, in the event of their arrest in connection with the offence which is registered vide C.R. No.52 of 2009 at D.B. Marg Police Station under section 3(1) (viii), 3(1)(ix), 3(2)(ii) of the Atrocities Act and under section 120B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, be released on bail in the sum of Rs 5000/ each with one or two sureties in the like amount. 8. Application is disposed of. 4 (V.M. KANADE, J.)