Read Time: 04 minutes
Section 18 of the SC/ST Act states that anticipatory bail should not be granted if a person is booked under the SC/ST Act. However, since no evidence was submitted regarding the accusations, the bench remarked that the bar under Section 18 would not be applicable in this case
The Bombay High Court has recently granted bail to a mother-in-law booked under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, while noting that the utterances were not made in public but within the four corners of the house.
“..there is nothing to indicate that the utterances have taken place in public view. All the utterances, even if taken as true, have taken place within the four corners of the house and there is nothing to indicate that such utterances are heard by members of public in any manner,” the order reads.
A single judge bench of the high court comprising Justice Sandeep Marne was hearing an appeal against the order of the sessions court rejecting the pre-arrest bail application of a mother-in-law booked under Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the SC & ST Act.
Advocate Aishwarya Kantawala, appearing for the appellant, submitted that the complainant and the son of the appellant have not been residing together since April 16, 2024. She argued that the existence of marital discord between the parties appears to be the main reason behind lodging the FIR.
Advocate Atul Sonawane, appearing for the complainant, submitted that the FIR alleges both accused repeatedly insulted the complainant with reference to her caste in a loud voice audible to outsiders. However, the bench noted that no specific particulars were provided regarding this allegation.
Section 18 of the SC/ST Act states that anticipatory bail should not be granted if a person is booked under the SC/ST Act. However, since no evidence was submitted regarding the accusations, the bench remarked that the bar under Section 18 would not be applicable in this case.
Advocate Kantawala further submitted that the appellant has already handed over CCTV footage from the house to the Investigating Officer, which she claimed would demonstrate the falsity of the allegations leveled by the complainant. She also informed the bench that the appellant had attended the concerned police station on August 21, 2024, and cooperated with the completion of the investigation.
Accordingly, the bench proceeded to grant anticipatory bail to the mother in law.
Case title: Seema Tulsidas Lakhani vs State of Maharashtra
Please Login or Register
