Bombay HC Grants Anticipatory Bail To Shiv Sena Leader In Case Involving Derogatory Remarks Against Journalist
The Bombay High Court granted anticipatory bail to Waman Barku Mhatre, a leader of the Shiv Sena (Shinde faction), who was accused of making derogatory remarks towards a woman journalist from the Buddha community.
The incident in question took place when the journalist, who has over a decade of experience working for a Marathi daily, was reporting on protests triggered by the sexual assault of two minor children at a local school. Mhatre allegedly interrupted her and a colleague at Badlapur Railway Station, making disparaging comments about her reporting and questioning its credibility. He purportedly suggested that her reporting implied she had been raped.
Mhatre faced multiple charges, including violations of Sections 3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, as well as Sections 74 and 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). A special judge in Kalyan had previously denied Mhatre's bail application, citing the prohibition under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, which bars anticipatory bail if a prima facie case is established. Following this, Mhatre sought relief from the High Court.
A Bench of Justice Sandeep Marne determined that there was insufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case against Mhatre under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (SC/ST Act). The Court noted that there was no indication of any intent to humiliate the journalist based on her caste.
Advocate Viresh Purwant appeared for the Petitioner and Additional Public Prosecutor Shilpa K. Gajare-Dhumal appeared for the Respondents.
The Court observed, “The FIR statement prima facie does not indicate that there was any intention on the part of appellant (Mhatre) to humiliate the caste of the complainant (journalist). Therefore, it is doubtful at this stage whether the offence under Section 3(1)(w)(ii) of the SC/ST Act could be made out against the appellant,”
After reviewing the FIR, the High Court ultimately granted anticipatory bail to Mhatre, concluding that there was no clear connection between his statements and the journalist’s caste.
Addressing concerns regarding alleged threats, the Court found insufficient evidence to suggest that Mhatre posed a threat to the journalist. “In my view therefore, it would be too dangerous to infer that appellant has threatened or is likely to threaten the complainant upon grant of anticipatory bail. In any case necessary conditions can be put so as to ensure that appellant does not interfere with the course investigations,” the Court stated.
Consequently, the Court set aside the earlier order denying bail, determining that the bar under Section 18 of the SC & ST Act was not applicable in this instance.
Cause Title: Waman Barku Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., [2024:BHC-AS:39436]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Viresh Purwant, Rushikesh Kale, Rajendra Bamane, and A.K. Sheikh
Respondents: Additional Public Prosecutor Shilpa K. Gajare-Dhumal, Advocates Samir Vaidya, Vinod Satpute, Sheetal Satpute, Tejali Jagdhone, and Lubdha Bhoir.