Nagpur: The Nagpur bench of Bombay high court recently granted anticipatory bail to two men accused in a case under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, holding that neither the FIR nor the case diary showed that the alleged casteist remarks were witnessed by the public.“The case diary produced by the prosecution does not reflect that any other third person witnessed the incident of casteist remarks in the field,” Justice YG Khobragade observed.The court was hearing an appeal by two farmers from Buldhana district. They challenged the July 16 order of Buldhana sessions court, which rejected their anticipatory bail application. HC quashed the order.The FIR was registered at Chikhli police station on June 30 after a complaint by a 23-year-old woman. She alleged that she and her mother were working in their agricultural field around 11.30am when both accused abused them, hurled caste-based slurs and assaulted them with an iron rod. The prosecution also alleged that the accused pulled the complainant’s saree and threatened to rape her.HC noted that the alleged casteist remarks were attributed to the accused “in chorus” but found that the FIR did not establish that the incident occurred within public view. The case diary, the court said, contained no indication that any third person witnessed the alleged remarks.The court relied on Supreme Court judgments explaining the distinction between a public place and a place within public view. It noted that the statutory bar on anticipatory bail under the SC/ST Act applies where the complaint makes out a prima facie case attracting the Act, including the relevant requirement concerning public view.The prosecution opposed the appeal, pointing to one of the accused’s five to six criminal cases and preventive proceedings registered at Chikhli police station. HC noted, however, that he had already been granted bail in those matters.The court ultimately held that no bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act prevented the grant of anticipatory bail and described the trial court’s refusal to release the two accused as “unjustifiable”.Both accused were directed to execute personal bonds of Rs50,000 each with two solvent sureties in the like amount.The court also directed them not to threaten or induce prosecution witnesses or tamper with evidence and ordered them to furnish their mobile numbers, along with those of two close relatives, to the investigating officer.
