1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Criminal Application No.3493 of 2008 Panditrao Dattatraya Kene Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra Respondent Mr.A.P.Mundargi, Senior Advocate with Mr.V.V. Purwant for applicant. Mr.J.P.Yagnik, APP for State. CORAM: D.B.BHOSALE, J. October 21, 2008. P.C. . Heard Mr.Mundargi, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant and Mr. Yagnik, learned APP. . The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in C.R. No.94 of 2008 of Bhudargad Police Station, Kolhapur. The said crime has been registered against the applicant for having allegedly committed an offence under Sections 395, 143, 147, 148, 452 of IPC, Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, Section 3(1)(x) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act. The complainant Prakash Mahadeo Kamble lodged an FIR 2 with the aforesaid police station contending that on 13/9/2008 on the eve of immersion procession of Lord Ganesha idol, the alleged incident occurred in which the participants, including the applicant, started pelting stones on the house of the complainant and they broke the glasses of the windows. Thereafter, those persons forcibly entered into the house of the complainant and abused him in filthy language. There was also a scuffle in which they allegedly snatched a gold chain of the complainant and abused him on caste. This all happened when the procession was in front of the complainant’s house. Hence he lodged the FIR. . Mr.Mundargi, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant, at the outset, submitted that the provisions of the Atrocities Act are not attracted in the present case at all in view of the fact that the FIR nowhere discloses the caste of the accused to which he belonged to. He submitted that this is the requirement of law as held by this Court in several judgments and more particularly in Ms. Subhadra Sushil Anand & ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra [2007 [2007 [2007 ALL ALL ALL MR MR MR (Cri) 3193] (Cri) 3193] (Cri) 3193]. In this case, it is held that the complainant should disclose the caste of the accused also so as to enable the police to take cognizance of 3 the offence committed under the provisions of the Atrocities Act. He submitted that it would be necessary for the complainant to disclose that the person who is accused of commission of offence under the said Act is not a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and that he intentionally insulted and intimidated with intent to humiliate the complainant. He also placed reliance upon some other judgments to which I need not make reference in view of the fact that the judgment relied upon by him in Subhadra Sushil Anand’s case is the judgment of the Division Bench. I perused all that judgment. This Court while dealing with the very same question, in paragraph 9 of the said judgment held thus: ". Plain reading of the provisions of law comprised under Section 3(1)(x) of the said Act therefore would reveal that in order to enable the police to take cognizance of the offence committed under the said provisions of law, it would be necessary for the complainant to disclose that the person who is accused of commission of offence under the said Act is not a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and that he intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate the complainant or any other person who is a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and lastly that such incident should occur in public view. In other words, the complaint has not only to reveal the caste of the person who is sought to be insulted or intimidated or humiliated but he should also disclose that 4 such person belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and simultaneously the complaint should also reveal that the person who is accused of commission of such offence does not belong either to a Scheduled Caste or to a Scheduled Tribe. It is only when the accusation with an intention to insult or intimidate or to humiliate has been made by a person not belonging either to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and addressed to the person belong to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, and such incident occurs in public view, only in that case, it could be said to have committed an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the said Act and not otherwise. Obviously, therefore, if the complaint does not disclose that the accused person does not belong to a caste other than Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, it would not disclose an offence in terms of the said Section, sufficient to take cognizance thereof by the police." . Thus, it is now well settled that it is only when the accused with intention to insult or intimidate or to humiliate has been made by a person not belonging either to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and addressed to the person belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, and such incident occurs in public view, only in that case it could be said to have committed an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act. In the present case the complaint does not disclose that the accused person does not belong either to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. The learned APP could not point out either from the complaint or any other material 5 that such fact has been disclosed in the complaint. In the circumstances, I am inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. Hence the following order . In the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with C.R.No.94 of 2008 of Bhudargad Police Station, Kolhapur, the applicant is directed to be enlarged on bail in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties to make up the amount subject to the condition that the applicant shall report to the concerned police station every alternate day between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. till 15th November 2008 except the period between 27/10/2008 to 31/10/2008 and thereafter on every second and fourth Saturday between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. for a period of ninety days from the date of his formal arrest or till filing of the charge-sheet whichever is earlier. The application is accordingly disposed of.