1 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2363 OF 2009 Jaywant Nagnath Hakke.. applicant -versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents Shri V.V. Purwant, for the applicant. Shri H. J. Dedhia, APP for the state. CORAM: R. G. KETKAR J (Vacation Judge) DATED: 21st May, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard Shri V.V. Purwant, learned counsel for the applicant Shri H.J.Dedhia, learned APP for the respondent state. 2 2. This is an application u/s 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, l973 (for short called as “Cr. P.C”), in connection with offence under sections 307, 323, l43, l48, l49 Indian Penal Code (for short called as “IPC”) and under section l35 of the Bombay Police Act, as also under section 3(l)(x) of the Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and also under section 7(l) (d) of the P. C. R Act, registered with Solapur Taluka Police Station, bearing Crime No.83 of 2009. In support of the application, Mr.Purwant, learned counsel, submitted that the applicant is Head Master of Sou.Ujjawalatai Sushilkumar Shinde Prathamik Vidyamandir, Salgarwadi, Solapur. He is falsely implicated in the present case which is counter complaint filed against the present complainant bearing Crime No.84 of 2009 for offence punishable under sections l47, l48, l49, 452, 323, 324, 504 and 506 IPC. 3. On the other hand, Shri.Dedhia, learned APP for the respondent state invited my attention to the statement of the complainant Ms Anjana Mane, dated April 5, 2009. There is specific role assigned to the present applicant to 3 the effect that he abused the complainant on her caste in the public place and within the public view. The complainant and the prosecution witnesses belong to Mahar Community. 4. After considering the rival submissions and after perusal of the papers and report, it appears that prima facie the applicant was present on the spot occurrence. The statement of the prosecution witnesses namely Raju Kamble and Sou. Ramabai Waghmare, discloses role played by the applicant at the time of incident. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur while rejecting the anticipatory bail application on May 8, 2009, also recorded in paragraph l0 about the fact that there is every possibility of both groups having knowledge of the caste of the opposite group. The offence is converted against present applicant and other co accused persons from section 307 to section 302 IPC. The death occurred due to bilateral pneumonisis with plural effusion and ascitis in admitted case of head injury. 5. In the light of aforesaid position, in my judgment 4 no case for enlarging the applicant on anticipatory bail is made out. The application stands rejected. (R.G. KETKAR, J)