1 1 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1810 OF 2009 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1810 OF 2009 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1810 OF 2009 1. Shakuntala @ Sakhubai Ananda Dudhal, 2.Hari Ananda Dudhal, .. Applicants Vs. State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Mr.J.D.Mane,for the applicants. Mr.J.P.Yagnik, A.P.P, for the State. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 05.05.2009. DATED : 05.05.2009. DATED : 05.05.2009. P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.P.P for the State. 2. The applicants are seeking anticipatory bail in C.R.No. 07 of 2009 of Tembhurni Police station. The said crime has been registered against the applicants for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under sections 323,504,506 r/w 34 of IPC and section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1979 (for short, "the Act"). 2 2 2 3. Mr Mane, learned counsel for the applicants, at the outset, invited my attention to the FIR and submitted that the alleged incident cannot be stated to have been viewed by the public. He submitted that from perusal of the FIR, it is clear that except the complainant, no other person or a member of the public was present at the relevant time and, therefore, the provisions of section 3(1)(x) of the Act are not attracted. He invited my attention to the Judgment of this Court in Mahesh Patole and ors Vs. State of Maharashtra (Criminal Application No.1318 of 2009 dated 21.4.2009), and submitted that the present case is squarely covered by this judgment. He placed reliance upon the following observations in the said judgment. "The expression "within public view" will have to be read to mean that the offence under section 3(1)(x) of the Act, should take place in view of the "public". If no member of the public has either seen the incident or heard the remarks, then even if the place is a "public place" or a place "visible to the public", it would not attract the ingredients of the offence under section 3(1)(x) of the Act". In the present case, the complainant has specifically stated that on 13.3.2009 at 7 am he alone was passing 3 3 3 through the field. He has not made reference to any other person or a member of the public in the FIR. The learned APP also could not place any material on record to show that apart from the complainant, any other member of the public was also present when the incident occurred. Thus, from perusal of the FIR, treating the allegations to be true, it is clear that criminal offence under section 3(1)(x), is prima facie not made out. In the circumstances, the applicants are entitled for anticipatory bail. Hence, the following order. . In the event of arrest, applicants no.1-Shakuntala @ Sakhubai Ananda Dudhal and no.2-Hari Ananda Dudhal- be released on bail in the sum of Rs.5000/- each with one or two sureties to make up the said amount subject to the conditions stipulated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. Further, they are directed to report to the concerned police station on every Wednesday and Saturday between 10 am and 11 am till 20.5.2009 and, thereafter, on every alternate Saturday between 10 am and 11 am for a period of ninety days or till filing of the chargesheet, whichever is earlier. 4 4 4 10. While passing this order I shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the trial Court shall deal with the case uninfluenced by the observations made on merits in this order. . The application is disposed of. (D.B.Bhosale, J.) (D.B.Bhosale, J.) (D.B.Bhosale, J.)