Bombay High Court
Daulatrao Nanasaheb Pisal vs Bhuinj Police Station And Ors. on 18 April, 1998
Equivalent citations: (1998)100BOMLR167
Author: S.S. Nijjar
Bench: S.S. Nijjar
JUDGMENT S.S. Nijjar, J.
1. In this case a complaint has been lodged by one Mrs. Ashatai Jayawant Parte to the effect that the applicant has tried to outrage her modesty. It is alleged that she belongs to Scheduled Caste, The applicant is liable to be proceeded against for having committed offences under Sections 354, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1) and (xi) and Section 3(ix) of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter "the Act").
2. The applicant is stated to be a journalist. Due to his investigations, one Dr. Kadam and his wife who were running a ring of vice came to be arrested. Husband and wife were not able to get bail for a considerable period of time. It is submitted by Mr. Thorat, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant, that as a result Dr. Kadam became enimical towards the applicant. He further submits it is at his behest that the complaint has been filed by Mrs. Parte. She is alleged to have been married to a Hindu-Maratha many years ago. She is the mother of four children. Story put forward by Mrs. Parte is that she was conducting some litigation against her husband for maintenance. The Applicant is supposed to have assured her that he will pursue her case on her behalf. On the day of the incident, Mr. Parte is stated to have gone to the house of the applicant who at about 9.30 a.m. in the morning tried to have sexual intercourse with her. Apprehending arrest the applicant filed Anticipatory Bail Application No. 535 of 1997 in the Sessions Court at Satara. The Additional Sessions Judge on 17th December, 1997 dismissed the said application for anticipatory bail. It has been held that in view of the bar contained in Section 18 of the Act. the application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable.
3. Mr. Thorat submits that the husband himself has given an affidavit to the effect that he is a Hindu-Maratha. He has also attached the certificate of his caste. A certificate has also been issued by the Sarpanch of the village to the effect that the husband is a Hindu-Maratha.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Shiride. the learned A.P.P., submits that admittedly before marriage Mrs. Parte belonged to S.C. Her marriage to a Hindn-Maratha would not have the effect of obliterating her caste, He further submits that the affidavit given by the husband is motivated and has been given at the instance of the Applicant. He submits that admittedly there is a dispute between husband and wife and the applicant had categorically misused his position of influence. In these circumstances he submits that this is not a ease for the grant of anticipatory bail especially in view of the fact that the issuance of the certificate to Mrs. Parte by the Sub-Divisional Officer to the effect that she belonged to S.C.
5. In my view, (he disputes which have been raised with regard to the caste of Mrs. Parte cannot be adjudicated in these proceedings. Had it been an admitted case that the alleged victim belonged to S.C. then perhaps the bar under Section 18 would apply. Even otherwise the Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University and Ors. has held that a husband and wife are one under Hindu law and so long as the wife survives, she is half of the husband. The Supreme Court further held as under : .
It would, therefore, be clear that be it either under the Canon law or the Hindu law. on marriage wife becomes an integral part of husband's marital home entitled to equal status of husband as a member of the family. Therefore, the lady, on marriage, becomes a member of the family and thereby she becomes a member of the caste to which she: moved. The caste rigidity breaks down and would stand no impediment to her becoming a member of the family to which the husband belongs and she gets herself transplanted.
6. In view of the above, prima facie I am of the view that once the marriage was celebrated between Mrs. Parte and her husband she lost the benefit of belonging to S.C. I am, prima facie also of the view that the possibility of the applicant being falsely implicated cannot be ruled out. It has been held by the Supreme Court time and again that it is important to safeguard the fundamental rights of the citizen. Article 21 of the Constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or persona! liberty except by applying the procedure established by law. This right is available to all citizens. Similarly Article 14 provides equal protection to all citizens. Whenever a ease of deprivation of personal liberty comes before the Court, then the Court is always vigilant to protect the fundamental right of a citizen. Denial of bail amounts to deprivation of personal liberty. These principles have been elaborately set out by the Supreme Court in the oft quoted case of Gurbaksh Singh Sihbia v. Slate of Punjab.
7. Looking at the facts and the peculiar circumstances of this ease, 1 am of the view that the applicant is entitled to succeed in his application for anticipatory bail. The application is, therefore, made absolute with a direction that in the event of arrest of the applicant under Sections 354, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1) and (xi) and Section 3(ix) of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 1989 in C.R. No. 156/97, the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one/two sureties in the like amount.
The Applicant is directed to co-operate in the investigation if the same is not yet completed and not to communicate at all with the complainant. Mrs. Parte, or tamper with any other evidence.