1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3012/2009 ( Amol s/o Tukaram Patil vs. State of Maharashtra ) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram Court's or Judges Order appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. .......................................................................................................................................................... Mr A P Tathod, Adv.for applicant Mr Adgaonkar, APP for Respondent CORAM: A.P. BHANGALE,J. DATED: 12 th August, 2009. Heard learned counsel for respective parties. 2. The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with accusations made in FIR No.84/2009 on 19.6.2009, reported at Manora Police Station, Dist. Washim, by Sonali, belonging to Adivasi community. She reported that despite the fact that she was married with one Suresh Pardhi on 15.4.2009, the applicant who belongs to “Teli” community had, on account of pre-marital affairs, used to write love letters, threatening her that he will die if she remains with her husband. Furthermore, according to the first informant, when she returned to her parental home, the applicant had sexual relations with her, resulting into she becoming pregnant of seven months, on the pretext that he will marry with her. The parents of first informant were also informed by the applicant that he will marry with her and had taken her to Gangakhed where they resided for some days. However, he did not kept his promise. The applicant had given impression to the first informant that she is wedded with him and he will bring documents from Amravati. He had also reduced in writing on stamp paper and assured parents of the first informant that he will bring documents of marriage from Amravati. Thus, on the pretext of false promise to marry her, the applicant had developed sexual intercourse with her resulting into pregnancy for about 7-months. Accusations are, therefore for offence punishable under sections 376, 417, 2 418, 498, 493 read with section 3 (1) (xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act, 1989. Section 3(1) (xii) indicates that whoever not being a member of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes being in a position to dominate the will of a woman belonging to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, uses his position to exploit her sexually, to which she would not have otherwise agreed, it is an offence punishable with imprisonment which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years with fine. 3. Learned Advocate for the applicant pointed out that in view of the ruling in Ramchandra Govindrao Watkar vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 1995 (2) Mh.L.J. 669 the ingredients constituting the offence under the Atrocities Act, 1989 must be established prima facie otherwise jurisdiction of the Court to grant anticipatory bail has not taken away. 4. Looking into the FIR in the present case, it does appear that first informant had averred that she is from Adivasi community and the applicant is from “Teli” community ( not belonging to Scheduled Castes or Tribes). Thus, looking into the accusations made in the FIR, prima facie, ingredients of Section 3 (1) (xii) appear present and, therefore, statutory bar u/s 18 of the said Act would be attracted and no relief in the nature of anticipatory bail can be granted in such cases of serious accusations. The accusations needs investigation thoroughly and, if necessary, by custodial interrogation. Application stands rejected. JUDGE. sahare