IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1680 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1680 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1680 OF 2008 Rameshchandra Eknath Parkale. ... Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent. V.V.Purwant for the applicant. Mrs.P.P.Shinde, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. DATED: 18th June 2008. DATED: 18th June 2008. DATED: 18th June 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: ---- ---- ---- . Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This application is under section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in C.R.No.3022/2008 registered with Railway Police Station, Pune for the offences punishable under sections 3(ii)(x), (xi) of the S.C.S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities Act) ("Atrocities Act" for short) and sections 504, 506, 352 of Indian Penal Code. 3. At the outset, learned A.P.P., appearing for the State raised preliminary objection to the maintainability of the application in view of bar contained in section 18 of the Atrocities Act. Whereas learned counsel for the applicant submits that bar under section 18 of the Atrocities Act does not operate. The learned A.P.P. submits that the Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 20th April, 2001 (unreported) passed in Crim. Writ Petition No.49/2001 (Anant Vasantlal Sambre v. State Anant Vasantlal Sambre v. State Anant Vasantlal Sambre v. State of Maharashtra of Maharashtra of Maharashtra) has lost its precedential value since the issue is pending before the larger bench in view of the deferring judgment dated 3rd April, 2008 passed in Writ Petition No.2160/2005 (Rajiv Ram Bhadbhade v. Rajiv Ram Bhadbhade v. Rajiv Ram Bhadbhade v. State of Maharashtra State of Maharashtra State of Maharashtra). 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that even if the submission made by learned A.P.P. is accepted, even then, so long as the reference is not answered by the larger bench, the judgment in the case of Anant Vasantlal Sambre Anant Vasantlal Sambre Anant Vasantlal Sambre (supra) does not cease to be binding on this Court. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Yeshwant Natthuji Meshram v. Yeshwant Natthuji Meshram v. Yeshwant Natthuji Meshram v. State of Maharashtra State of Maharashtra State of Maharashtra, 1995 (1) Mh.L.J. 48 in support of his submission and relied upon observations made in para-24 thereof, which reads as under: "24. If section 6 of the DSPE Act does not - 3 - come in the way when the court gives direction to the CBI to conduct an investigation, a fortiori, absence of notification under section 3 of the DSPE Act or order under section 5 of the said Act cannot come in the way of the High Court in giving direction to the CBI to conduct an investigation into the cognizable crime. Till the reference is answered by the larger Bench of the Supreme Court and authoritative pronouncement is delivered by the apex court on the question as to whether court can order the CBI, an establishment under the DSPE Act to investigate a cognizable crime committed in any State without the consent of that State Government or without any notification or order having been issued in that behalf, we are of the firm view that the judgment of the Apex Court in Sampatlal’s case (supra) is binding and does not cease to have binding force on the High Court and, therefore, the High Court is not powerless in issuing writ, order or direction for investigation of a cognizable crime to be conducted by C.B.I. without the consent of the State Government or without any notification or order having been issued in that behalf. (Emphasis supplied) 6. In the above view of the matter, the preliminary objection raised by learned A.P.P. stands over-ruled. 7. Having over-ruled the preliminary objection, the learned counsel for the applicant made his submissions on the merits of the matter and took me through the F.I.R.; wherein caste of the accused has - 4 - not been mentioned; which is a condition precedent for registration of the offence under the Atrocities Act as held by the Division Bench of this Court in its judgment in the case of Anant Vasantlal Sambre Anant Vasantlal Sambre Anant Vasantlal Sambre (supra). 8. Having seen the F.I.R., it does not mention the caste of the accused. In that view of the matter, prima facie; case is made out by the applicant so far as non-applicability of Atrocities Act is concerned. So far as other offences are concerned for which the applicant has been charged, are not serious one warranting rejection of the application for anticipatory bail. 9. In the above view of the matter, I am inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the applicant, subject to the following conditions: (a) In the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with C.R.No.3022/2008 registered with Railway Police Station, Pune he shall be released on bail of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties to make up the said amount. - 5 - (b) The applicant shall report to concerned Police Station as when called and shall co-operate with the investigating agency. (c) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement or threat or pressurise any prosecution witnesses and shall not in any manner tamper with the prosecution evidence. (d) This order of anticipatory bail shall operate till the filing of the charge-sheet. After filing of charge-sheet, it would be open for the applicant to apply for regular bail before regular court. (e) It is needless to mention that breach of any of the conditions by the applicant shall result in cancellation of bail. 9. Application stands disposed of accordingly. - 6 - JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE