Vidhyaben Mehulbhai Jadav vs State Of Gujarat

Umesh A. Trivedi, J

These Criminal Appeals are filed under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') praying for an order of anticipatory bail in connection with the offence registered at C.R. No.11196016210074 of 2021 for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 323, 294(b), 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3(2)(va), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1) (z) of 'the Act' registered with Makarpura Police Station, Vadodara City. Abovesaid Sections are mentioned as it is reflected from the copy of FIR at page 12.

While issuing 'Notice' into the appeal vide an order dated 23.2.2021, this Court has recorded existence of cross cases into the present incident as also such cross cases in the year 2018 against one of the society member by the very complainant. Therefore, while issuing 'Notice', ad-interim order was passed by the Court protecting the appellant in one of the appeal. Thereafter, it came to be granted in favour of the co-accused also who happens to be husband of Vidhyaben Mehulbhai Jadav in Criminal Appeal No.374 of 2021. Pursuant to the 'Notice' issued, neither the first informant remained personally present nor through an advocate, though served. Endorsement on the cause list shows that Respondent No.2 is served through concerned Police Station. Therefore, it appears that the first informant is not interested in hearing of these appeals praying for an order of anticipatory bail.

As per the prosecution case against the appellants, they are alleged to have abused first informant slapped him while Mehulbhai Abhilashbhai caught hold of the first informant and the accused No.3 shown in the First Information Report, who is already released on regular bail by the competent Court, beaten him with kick and fist blow. It is further alleged that one of the appelalnt, Vidhyaben Mehulbhai Jadav, also given kick and fist blow to the wife of the first informant and uttered insulting words in respect of their caste, threatening them to vacate the premises and go away from the society.

Heard Mr.Nimesh Patel, learned advocate for the appellants. It is submitted that even if the allegations leveled in the First Information Report is believed to be true, it pertains to a very trivial domestic quarrel between the society members where no one is seriously assaulted or injured physically but in respect of the said incident, perhaps verbal altercation, cross cases are also filed. He has further submitted that the very complainant has also filed similar nature of First Information Report against another society member, that too, in the year 2018, there also there was a cross case filed against very first informant. He has further submitted that even no such assault or any injury is caused to any of the witnesses and therefore, with a view to deprive the appellants, statutory remedy available under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, they are attributed utterances with respect to insult of their caste, which is otherwise not correct. Therefore, he has prayed that appellants be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

Though Respondent No.2 is served long back with the 'Notice' of this Court through Investigating Officer but he has chosen not to appear in person or through an advocate.

Ms.C.M.Shah, learned APP submitted that since the provisions of 'the Act' invoked are very explicit from the averments in the First Information Report, in view of Section 18 of 'the Act', appellants be refused an order of anticipatory bail.

Heard Mr.Nimesh Patel, learned advocate for the appellants as also Ms.C.M.Shah, learned APP. Since the first informant, though served, has chosen not to appear either in person or through an advocate, there is no submission on his behalf made before the Court. Considering the investigation papers, which are placed for perusal, though some incident might have occurred in such domestic issue in between the inhabitants of the society, considering the conduct of the first informant of filing such cases invoking provisions of the Act against society members where he is facing similar charges except the provisions of 'the Act' in a cross cases, when injury certificates revealed that except oral complaint of pain, no any external injury is found and again as recorded in the injury certificate patient went "DAMA from NCOT on 15.1.2021 at 2.50 a.m". Thus, it appears that he is not following advise of the Doctors also and doing what he likes. Though appellants are alleged to have uttered abusive words insulting caste of the first informant, it appears that because of domestic quarrel between the society members when tempers running high, even if it is uttered or not, it appears to have been stated. Even if presuming it to have been stated when it is a domestic quarrel between the society members for which cross case is filed, considering it along with incident in the year 2018 with the very same first informant filing such complaint invoking the provisions of 'the Act' against another member of the society and there is also cross cases for the same offence against each other, I seen no reason to refuse an order of anticipatory bail to the appellants as the same might have been filed to vent vengeance by the first informant despite prohibition under Section 18 of 'the Act'.

Hence, the Investigating Officer is directed to release the appellants on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with the offence registered at C.R. No.11196016210074 of 2021 for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 323, 294(b), 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3(2)(va), 3(1) (r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(z) of 'the Act' registered with Makarpura Police Station, Vadodara City on their executing personal bond of Rs.10,000/- each on the following terms and conditions that;

(a) they shall cooperate with the investigation and make themselves available for interrogation whenever required;

(b) they shall remain present at concerned Police Station on 07.12.2021 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.;

(c) they shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer;

(d) they shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police;

(e) they shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the investigating officer and the court concerned and shall not change his residence till the final disposal of the case till further orders;

(f) they shall not leave India without the permission of the concerned trial court and if having passport shall deposit the same before the concerned trial court within a week; and

(g) it would be open to the Investigating Officer to file an application for remand if he considers it proper and just and the learned Magistrate would decide it on merits;

Despite this order, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to apply to the competent Magistrate, for police remand of the appellants. The appellants shall remain present before the learned Magistrate on the first date of hearing of such application and on all subsequent occasions, as may be directed by the learned Magistrate. This would be sufficient to treat the accused in the judicial custody for the purpose of entertaining application of the prosecution for police remand. This is, however, without prejudice to the right of the accused to seek stay against an order of remand, if, ultimately, granted, and the power of the learned Magistrate to consider such a request in accordance with law. It is clarified that the appellants, even if, remanded to the police custody, upon completion of such period of police remand, shall be set free immediately, subject to other conditions of this anticipatory bail order.

At the trial, the concerned trial court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court in the present order

With this, the present Appeals are disposed of as allowed. Direct service is permitted.