Nitin Shankar Kale vs. The State Of Maharashtra And Another

Held

The Court held that there was prima facie material against the appellant for the charges under Sections 3(1)(u) and 3(1)(w)(ii) of the Atrocities Act. The Court found that the informant was subjected to indignities, humiliations, and harassment. The allegations of outraging modesty, supported by independent witnesses (employees of the Grampanchyat), were considered sufficient to involve the appellant in the offences under the Atrocities Act. The Court distinguished the cited precedents, stating they were not helpful to the appellant because the present case involved specific allegations of indignities, humiliations, and harassment, including outraging modesty, which are covered by the Act. Consequently, the Court found a bar under Section 18-A of the Atrocities Act to entertain the appeal for pre-arrest bail. The trial court's order was deemed to have rightly considered the material, and thus, no interference was warranted. The appeal was dismissed.

Facts

The appellant, Nitin Shankar Kale, is appealing an order from the Special Judge-1, Osmanabad, dated July 13, 2021, which denied his bail application. The case involves allegations under Sections 353, 354-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(u), 3(1)(w), 3(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The informant, a Gramsevek belonging to a Scheduled Caste, alleged that the appellant, whose wife is the Sarpanch, harassed her. Specific incidents include the appellant demanding money for work without proper GST bills, removing an inverter and batteries from the Grampanchyat office, and on June 6, 2021, entering the office under the influence of liquor, obstructing her duties, and outraging her modesty. The appellant claims the informant was incompetent and that the allegations stem from her grudge against him for lodging complaints about her conduct.

Key Issues

1. Whether the allegations in the FIR, particularly concerning the appellant's conduct on June 6, 2021, constitute offences under Sections 3(1)(u) and 3(1)(w)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, thereby attracting the bar under Section 18-A of the Act for granting pre-arrest bail? Petitioner's Arguments: The appellant's counsel argued that there were no allegations of caste-based abuse. He contended that the appellant was merely making grievances about the informant's conduct to her higher authorities and that the informant filed the complaint out of personal grudge. Reliance was placed on *Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand and another* (2021 CRI. L.J. 1) to argue that insults or intimidations must be on account of the victim belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Tribe. The appellant's counsel also referred to *Kedarsingh Dharma Patil & Anr. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.* (2019 ALL MR (Cri) 2974) regarding acts of sexual nature. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the State or the informant. However, the Court's findings suggest that the prosecution's case, as presented in the FIR and supported by witness statements, was considered sufficient.