1 CRI.APP.NO.2115/2009. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2115 OF 2009. 1. Pradeep s/o Kauraji Deshmukh. 2. Raju s/o Haribhau Khade. 3. Pravin s/o Kauraji Deshmukh. 4. Ashok s/o Namdeo Khade. 5. Sanjay s/o Maroti Jadhav. ...Applicants. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra & others. ...Respondent. ... Mr.J.M.Murkutge, Advocate for the applicants. Mrs.R.R.Mane, APP for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr.N.N.Shinde, Advocate for respondent No.3. ... CORAM: A.V.NIRGUDE,J. Date : 13th July,, 2009. COURT'S ORDER: 1. The applicants are seeking bail in Crime No. 62/2009 registered at Hatta Police Station, Dist. Hingoli, dated 3rd of June, 2009, for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of 2 CRI.APP.NO.2115/2009. the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes ( Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ( for short Atrocities Act ) and under Section 7(1)(3) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act. 2. The complainant approached police on 3rd June, 2009 and stated that on 2nd June, 2009 at about 03.00 p.m. the applicants attacked him. They abused him on the basis of his caste and then with the help of sticks and iron rods in their hands, they caused injuries on his person. The complainant was referred for medical examination and it was revealed that the complainant had sustained at least four simple injuries on his person. The injuries on the person of the complainant thus support his case that the applicants assaulted and caused injuries to him. The only question that is required to be answered is whether the applicants can be charged Section 3(i)(x) of the Atrocities Act? 3. The applicants pointed out that the applicants No.2 and 4 themselves are members of Scheduled Castes. Section 3 of the Atrocities Act, requires that an accused should not be a member of Scheduled 3 CRI.APP.NO.2115/2009. Caste to constitute an offence against him. So, at least as against the applicant Nos. 2 and 4 the offence under Section 3(i)(x) of the Atrocities Act is not constituted. 4. In my view, the applicants No.2 and 4 thus are entitled to anticipatory bail because all other offences alleged against them are bailable. 5. As regards the applicant Nos.1, 3 and 5, it is argued that there is no specific allegations about abuses on the basis of caste being given by them individually. It is true that the complainant made an omnibus statement that all the accused abused him on the basis of caste. 6. But the truthfulness of the complaint can not be doubted because the complaint did sustain injuries on that day. He has specifically mentioned as to who used what weapons during the assault. So, I am not inclined to hold that the applicants No.1, 3 and 5 had not only assaulted the complainant but had abused them on the basis of their caste. I can not hold that offence under Section 3(i)(x) of the Atrocities Act, is not constituted against them. 4 CRI.APP.NO.2115/2009. In view of Section 18 of the Atrocities Act, the Court can not grant anticipatory bail to persons who are accused of Section 3(i)(x) of the Atrocities Act. 7. The application is partly allowed. (i) The applicants No.2-Raju s/o Haribhau Khade and No.4-Ashok s/o Namdeo Khade, in the event of their arrest in this case, shall be released on bail of Rs. 5000/- (Rs.Five Thousand only) each, with one surety in the like amount, each. The application as regards rests of the applicants is dismissed. (ii) In view of the fact that the respondent has not filed reply, the application seeking quashing of the proceedings is not decided today. (A.V.NIRGUDE,J.) lkp