In a significant judgment, the Bombay High Court’s Aurangabad Bench, presided over by Justice R.M. Joshi, observed that the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, can be misused as a tool to harass individuals. The court granted anticipatory bail to the appellants Zaheer Abbas Ikram Sayyad and Laila Zaheer Sayyed, rejecting the charges of caste-based abuse and assault brought against them.
Case Background
The case stems from two criminal appeals—Criminal Appeal No. 654 of 2024 (filed by Zaheer Abbas Ikram Sayyad) and Criminal Appeal No. 655 of 2024 (filed by Laila Zaheer Sayyed)—both involving allegations of assault and caste-based insult.
According to the police complaint lodged on May 31, 2024, the informant alleged that the appellants, Zaheer and Laila, along with an unidentified person, accosted him on the previous evening, May 30, 2024, at around 7:30 pm. Zaheer was alleged to have wielded a sickle, assaulted the informant, and used caste-based slurs. The case was registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) along with the provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The appellants contended that the allegations were fabricated and motivated by personal disputes involving the informant’s employer. They argued that they were not present at the crime scene during the alleged incident.
Arguments and Legal Issues
– Counsel for Appellants: Advocate Mr. S. R. Andhale, representing the appellants, highlighted that the incident was a case of false implication. He pointed out prior disputes between the appellants and the employer of the informant, suggesting that the informant had been used as a proxy to harass the appellants.
– Prosecution’s Stand: APP Miss. D. S. Jape opposed the bail application, arguing that given the seriousness of the charges, particularly involving a weapon, custodial interrogation was necessary. The prosecution relied on the testimony of a witness named Satish, who claimed to have witnessed the assault.
– Objection by Informant’s Counsel: Advocate Mr. A. E. Madne, appointed for the informant, raised objections to the maintainability of the appeals, citing the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, which restricts anticipatory bail in such cases.
Court’s Observations and Judgment
In its detailed order, the court made strong remarks on the abuse of legal provisions. Justice R. M. Joshi remarked:
“This is an example as to how the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the Indian Penal Code can be abused by a dishonest person.”
The court noted that the investigation revealed inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case. A critical report from the investigating agency indicated that appellant Laila Zaheer Sayyed was present at home at the time of the alleged incident, which invalidated her involvement. Furthermore, the witness Satish’s statement suggested the presence of only one individual at the scene, undermining the informant’s claim of multiple assailants.
Based on these findings, the court concluded that the appellants were falsely implicated. The court granted anticipatory bail to both Zaheer and Laila, observing that the appellants’ version of being targeted due to personal enmity appeared credible.
The court ruled:
“It is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.”
The interim protection previously granted on July 24, 2024, and August 13, 2024, was made absolute through this judgment.
In a concluding directive, the court ordered that the fees of Rs. 3,000 per appeal be paid to the appointed counsel by the High Court Legal Services Authority, Sub Committee, Aurangabad.
