Amidst pendency of evaluation petitions through the Union in addition to a number of states in opposition to the debatable judgment in Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra, the place the apex courtroom, in directing initial enquiry previous to arrest and lifting absolutely the ban on anticipatory bail, diluted the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act of 1989, the Supreme Court on Monday granted an intervening time keep at the arrest of activist Trupti Prashant Desai in reference to a FIR underneath the mentioned Act.
The holiday bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar additionally issued understand on her SLP difficult the Bombay High Court’s denial of anticipatory bail in appreciate of the FIR invoking inter alia sections three(1)(r), three(2)(va) and phase 6 of the Act, lodged on the behest of a member of the Mahar neighborhood.
A Division Bench of the High Court had, on April 23, keeping that no case for anticipatory bail used to be made out, seen, “We are not going into the truth and falsity of the allegations at this stage. Once this complaint is perused in its entirety, particularly in the backdrop of the provisions of the SC/ST Act and the mandate of section 18 thereof, we cannot term this complaint as a patent false version. Merely because the complaint was made after some time, does not mean that ingredients of section 3(1)(r) are not, prima facie, satisfied. The FIR also invokes section 3(2)(va), which has been inserted by Act I of 2016. We do not think that at this stage we should express any opinion and particularly whether these provisions and the ingredients thereof are satisfied…”
The complainant has claimed that on his method to Mumbai, the petitioners had forcefully stopped his car, snatched his cell phone which allegedly contained proof in opposition to them, but even so a gold chain and a sum of Rs. 27,000. Thereupon, that they had assaulted him with sticks and an iron rod and abused him within the identify of caste.
The petitioners, earlier than the High Court, had contended that the grievance used to be made after 10 days of the incident and therefore, There seemed to be a patent falsity within the model of the complainant; that Such proceedings are at all times made on account of disputes and variations and specifically when one is operating an organisation. It used to be additional submitted that the petitioners are social employees and therefore, have by no means abused the complainant within the identify of his caste; that The entire incident is a figment of his creativeness and that he does now not belong to the Scheduled Caste for he has allegedly transformed himself from Hinduism to Christianity.