SUMMARY:

TITLE- CAN ABUSES EXIST IN A CHOROUS?

 Both of these appeals filed by the accused on 08.01.2020 in Nanded Police Station for
offences under Section 143,147,148,149, 506 IPC and under Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of
SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989. FIR filed by Respondent to appeal filed under
Section 14(a) SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act.
 Collective bail application of accused for grant of pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC
has been rejected by Special Judge / Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded on 21.01.2020.
The appellant (applicant) contended that the informant (respondent) filed FIR only with
intention to harass them.
 Respondent alleged unauthorized excavation by appellant, also alleged getting assaulted,
abused and threatened by the appellant. Police started inquiry, witness statement
recorded, relevant CCTV footage was taken. Enquiry revealed complaint as false,
following which it was withdrawn by the informant.
 Due to police intervention, settlement was reached. The compromise involved giving 18
brass of sand to the informant for Rs 2000 per brass. The sand was supplied but the
payment was not done. Now the Respondents contended- to avoid payment report was
lodged.
 On the day of incident, informant took Rs 3000 from the appellant Pratik Kopulwar and
gave threat of initiating prosecution under Atrocities Act for which the appellant lodged
offence under Section 341, 392, 384, 336, 506, 34 IPC.
 Bail application was barred under Section 18 of Atrocities Act as prima facie case has
been made out against the respondent- this was stated by the Special Judge for which this
appeal has now reached the Bombay High Court.
 Respondent in reply denied all the allegations rather contended he was accessing illegal
excavation of sand from Painganga River by the appellant. He had reported the same to
 the authorities who had not conducted any enquiry and let the respondent go scot free
where the sand has been taken from river that fell under Eco Sensitive Zone. When the
informant complained about the same, he was assaulted on the day of 02.12.2019 for
which he filed a written report on the same with the police on 03.12.2019.He also stated
abuses were hurled at him based on caste. The police did not take any cognizance of the
matter on 08.01.2020.
 Now the case was shifted to Mahur Police Station for further investigation since the case
fell under their jurisdiction. Following the villagers statements regarding various issues
where the appellant’s character comes into question, his present complaint was believed
to be next in line of his fake complaints and thus, disposed off on 03.12.2019.
 The appellants contended that the FIR filed on 08.01.2020 was tainted since the
informant does not wish to make payment following their compromise and along with
this, it was also contended that the allegation against the Police Inspector of Mahur Police
Station was completely baseless, frivolous, without any reason.
 Contention of informant that was accepted by the Special Judge, Trial Court-
o Incident took place outside the DSP (Deputy Supt. of Police) office`. Stating the
informant as getting dashed with tractor and police not bothering to protect his
life.
o FIR not immediately taken since the complainant was SC (scheduled caste).
While the FIR clearly makes out the prima facie offence committed by the
respondents under the Atrocities Act thus, it is submitted that the Trial Court
Judge was correct in rejecting the application.

ISSUE-

1) Whether there was a prima facie case established against the appellant for prosecution under the
Atrocities Act?
2) Whether bail can be granted to the appellant?

RATIO OF THE COURT-

 The Appellate Court judge held that no injury caused has been established even under
Section 307 IPC. Mere cryptic approach has been taken by the Special Judge where he
states about the injury caused but there has been no bodily injury shown in the evidence
or any specific offence registered against the same event. Also, the additional Public
Prosecutor in the arguments advanced has not mentioned anything about the bodily injury
caused to the appellant.
 Except appellant no. 4, others are from Banjara caste (nomadic tribe). Further the FIR
was filed against 7 people out of which Accused 5-7 belonged to ‘Mannerwarlu’ caste
which is a Schedule Caste under Section 3(1) (r) and 3(1) (s). Against them, complaint
 was dropped. The case of T. Toranath vs State of Andhra Pradesh and others 1
substantiates the same.
 Meanwhile the argument of the appellant that, all seven accused have having abused the
informant in chorous is an unrealistic scenario is what the Court held. There is no prima
facie case made out against the appellant. (following Shashikant Tambe vs State of
Maharashtra2)
 The court specifically held that-“Abuses or utterrances cannot be in chorus as two men or
women do not think alike at the same time what is going on the mind of another person
cannot be reviewed and that for especially abuses cannot be in chorus.” Thus clearly no
prima facie case made out.
 The Court has observed that the complaint appears to be made with a malafide intention
because of which after the settlement had been made between the respondent and the
appellant, the later took back the complaint filed.
 Further encashing the fact that he is a member of Schedule Caste. Also there is no
material before the Special Judge to observe that appellants committed serious offence by
giving dash by tractor with intent kill the respondent. All the witness statements are
appear to be supported by electronic evidence which states that it was the informant who
was at fault.

DECISION HELD-

Following Prithviraj Chavan vs Union of India3, there has been no prima facie case made out for
applicability of provisions of 1989 Act thus, no bar can be created by Section 18 nor there is any
bar on entertaining bail application therefore, the order of Special Judge is set aside alongwith
the appeal entertained and bail granted to the appellants releasing them on P.R. and S.B. of Rs.
15000 each.

AUTHOR OF THE SUMMARY- Susmita Tripathy.

1
T. Toranath vs State of Andhra Pradesh and others, 1999 (1) criminal 188.
2
Shashikant Tambe vs State of Maharashtra, 2008 All MR (criminal) 2132.
3
Prithviraj Chavan vs Union of India, Writ Petition no. 1015 of 2018.