1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2331 OF 2010 1. Sampat S/o.Pandurang Sumbare, Age-36 years, Occu-Agriculture, 2. Sk.Yunus S/o.Sk.Isaq, Age-40 years, Occu-Agriculture, 3. Ashok S/o.Bhagwan Tarate, Age-32 years, Occu-Agriculture, 4. Bhanudas S/o.Haribhau Bodkhe, Age-45 years, Occu-Agriculture, All applicants are R/o. Sarate-Wadgaon, Tal.Ashti, Dist. Beed APPLICANTS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station, Ambhora, Tq.Ashti, Dist. Beed 2. The Superintendent of Police, Beed, Dist. Beed. RESPONDENTS Mr.V.D.Salunkhe, learned counsel for applicants. Mr.S.G.Nandedkar, learned APP for State CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J. DATE : 30/06/2010 PER COURT : 2 1. By the present application, the applicants have approached this Court for their release on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in connection with CR No. 72/2010, registered in Ambhora Police Station, Tq.Ashti. 2. Heard learned counsel for applicants, learned APP for State. Perused the papers of investigation till carried out. 3. This application require to be considered in the light of certain facts, which are not disputed by both the parties. The alleged incident occurred in the afternoon of 05/06/2010, when the meeting was arranged in front of office of Panchayat Samiti around 11.00 a.m., presided over by the Development Officer, Ashti, Gramsevak and the Ex-Gramsevak of the village as certain complaints were received by these officers about the mis-appropriation of money on the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- which was awarded to the said village on account of Sant Gadgebaba Swacchata Abhiyan. When the proceeding was in progress, members of the Grampanchayat as well as villagers were present there. Apparently there are two groups in the said village, who are making allegations against each other. It is alleged that while the meeting was in progress, the complainant Sarjerao, and Sarpanch were furnishing information to the officers as well as the public gathered there, these applicants approached the complainant and abused on his caste, manhandled him and assaulted him. About the same incident, another offence came to be registered in the same police station vide CR No.73/2010, which was 3 registered on the complaint of present applicant no.1, wherein there is allegation not only about manhandling the first applicant, but the allegations as regards to snatching of gold locket weighing about 30 gm by 3 persons is also there. Thus the fact is clear that both the rival groups have filed complaints against each other and in those complaints, certain allegations are there which constituted non bailable offence. In the complaint lodged by the first applicant, find ingredients of section 395 of The IPC, while in the present application, find ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of The Atrocities Act. 4. During the course of submissions across the bar, my attention is drawn by the learned counsel for applicants towards the ratio laid down in the case of Pappu Singh versus State of U.P., reported in 2002 Cri.L.J.1251, wherein in para no.7, it is observed that to constitute an offence punishable u/s. 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act, simply addressing a person by his caste without any intention to insult or intimidate, does not constitute an offence under the Atrocities Act. No doubt, this ratio is laid down by the Allahabad High Court, after an opportunity was given to both the sides to lead the evidence during trial. Here one fact is clear that the meeting was called in front of Panchayat Samiti Office on the allegations about mis- appropriation of money at the hands of existing body of Gram Panchayat in which both groups have participated. Thus the fact is clear that there is political rivalry behind the meeting called. If some scuffle or dispute arises in such meeting, and about the incident they have lodged complaints against each other, then motivation to lodge 4 the complaint on political background can not be rulled out. Whether it is true or not, it can be tested at the time of trial and not at this stage. Considering this aspect and considering that the persons who are arrayed as an accused in the counter complaint are released on anticipatory bail, case is made out to exercise the discretion as an exceptional circumstance. It is made clear that these observations are relates to this application only and not the ratio given by this Court. Accordingly the order : O R D E R 1. Application is allowed. 2. In the event of arrest of applicants in CR No.72/2010, registered in Ambhora Police Station, they be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- each and on executing PR bond in the like amount. 3. Applicants to co-operate the investigation agency. 4. Application stands disposed of accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/JUNE 2010/cri.appl.2331-10