1 cri4008.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4008 OF 2011 Laxmibai W/o Sidhlingappa Tekale @ Tenkale ..Applicant -VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra and another ..Respondents ..... Mrs. S.S. Jadhav holding for Mr. S.S. Jadhav, Advocate for applicant Mr. B.V. Wagh, advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 2 Mr. C.V. Dharurkar, Advocate for the complainant. ..... (CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE,J.) DATE : 26th September, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Perused the investigation papers which were made available for inspection purpose and heard the learned counsel for the respective parties finally. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail apprehending her arrest, in connection with C.R. No. 60/2011, registered at Vazirabad Police Station, Dist. Nanded, for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the 2 cri4008.11 Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Protection of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. It appears that the crime has been registered on the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant namely; Smt. Panchphulabai Kacharu Ghode on 16th August, 2011 in respect of occurrence of incident on 12th May, 2011. It is alleged that on 12.05.2011 at about 4.30, the complainant, who is serving as Block Nursing Officer, was standing along with her office colleagues in the premises of Taluka Health Office, at that time, the applicant who was working as Women Health Nurse in PNC arrived there by shouting loudly on the complainant's caste who belongs to Mahar caste, by saying that "Kay ha Maharwada Bharawala, Tu Mahardee Kay ha Mahar Kalava Chalawala Aahe". It is alleged that the applicant abused in filthy language and threatened to see the complainant. It is the contention of the complainant that she belongs to scheduled caste even then the complainant orgnized the programme in respect of Jagtik Paricharika Din, and therefore, the applicant abused the complainant on her caste in filthy language. Accordingly, the complaint 3 cri4008.11 was lodged by the complainant to Vazirabad Police Station about the aforesaid incident on 16th August, 2011. 4. On the aforesaid back ground, the learned counsel for the applicant canvassed that the complainant has no authority to conduct the aforesaid programme, since she was not the office bearer, whereas Smt. Shobha Vithal Ghansare was the President. It is also canvassed that the alleged utterance was not uttered against the complainant. It is further canvassed that there is inordinate delay of six days in filing of F.I.R. because the incident took place on 12th May, 2011 and the complaint was lodged with Police personnel on 18th May, 2011. 5. The learned A.P.P. countered the said arguments and submitted that the delay has been explained by the complainant in the complaint itself stating that the complainant was mentally disturbed and frightened due to the aforesaid incident and after regaining the mental fitness, she filed the complaint on 18th May, 2011. It is also contended by the learned A.P.P. that 4 cri4008.11 the complaint itself reflects that the alleged utterances were made in singular form, which were addressed to very complainant and hence, it is submitted that there is no substance in the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. urged that the present application bears no substance. 6. In the context of delay, the learned counsel for the applicant, on instructions, stated that the complainant attended the office on 13.05.2011 as well as 16.05.2011 and therefore, suspicion is created in respect of the disturbed state of mind of the complainant during the said period. 7. Considering the rival submissions and also considering the very contents of the complaint, it appears that the name of the applicant has been reflected therein and the specific role has been attributed to the applicant during the occurrence of the incident. Moreover, the contents of the complaint disclose that the alleged utterances were uttered by the complainant in singular form, apparently, against 5 cri4008.11 the complainant herein that too in a public place. Moreover, the delay of about 6 days has been apparently explained in the very same complaint itself that she was frightened and mentally disturbed. Whether, she attended her office on 13.05.2011 as well as 16.05.2011 would be seen at the time of trial as it would be a matter of appreciation of the said aspect. Moreover, it is also pointed out that the statements of five witnesses have been recorded during the course of investigation as well as the statement of Smt. Shobha Vithal Ghansare, the President also has been recorded, which are in consonance with the complaint. 8. Besides the alleged offence is a serious offence and hence, the investigation is required to be carried out properly and grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant should not become stumbling block in smooth progress of the investigation. It cannot be overlooked that the copy of the complaint dated 22nd September, 2011 has been filed by the complainant along with the application seeking permission to assist the learned A.P.P. while conducting hearing of the present application which apparently discloses that the 6 cri4008.11 applicant has given threats to the complainant. 9. In the circumstances, considering the allegations made against the applicant and the nature and gravity thereof, it appears that there is prima facie case against the applicant and complicity of the applicant in the crime is apparent and hence, there is necessity of custodial interrogation of the applicant for further progress in the investigation in proper perspective, and hence, the present application deserves to be rejected. 10. In the result, the present Criminal Application is stands dismissed and is disposed of finally. 11. However, it is made clear that the above observations are prima facie in nature, and same shall be restricted to this order only and shall not be used in any other matter while deciding it on merits. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE) JUDGE ga s/cri4008.11