Manisha Amarsing Uikey And 7 Others v. State Of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps Dharni, Tah. Dharni, Dist. Amravati

aba581of2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) 581 OF 2020 (Manisha Amarsing Uike and ors..vs.. State, thr PSO, Dharni, Dist. Amravati) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court'

s orders of directions Court'

s or Judge'

s orders.

and Registrar's Orders.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri S.B. Gandhe, counsel for applicants.

Shri Bhagwan Lonare, APP for non-applicant.

CORAM: ROHIT B. DEO, J.

DATE:05.10.2020.

Hearing was conducted through video conferencing and the learned counsel agreed that the audio and visual quality was proper.

2.

Heard.

3.

The applicants are seeking pre-arrest bail in Crime 177/2020, registered with Dharni Police Station, for offence punishable under sections 353, 143, 147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal code.

4.

The case of the prosecution is that at 4.00 p.m. on 17.3.2020, the complainant lady who is Range Forest Officer visited and conducted survey of village Mangya Tal. Dharni to remove the encroachment from reserved forest. The lady Range Forest Officer was obstructed by the applicants, who were armed with lathies. She was prevented by the unlawful assembly from discharging her duties.

5.

The applicants have not only obstructed the lady

aba581of2020 Range Forest Officer by intimidating her, it appears that after the lady Range Forest Officer lodged report, the applicants have lodged a report accusing the lady Range Forest Officer of having committed offence punishable under section 4(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act ("Atrocities Act"). 6.

The instances of, public servants, and in particular women public servants, intimidated and assaulted, are on the rise. In the present case, the intimidation is aggravated by the report lodged invoking the provisions of the Atrocities Act, which prima facie appears to be a pressure tactic.

7.

The applicants are not entitled to discretionary relief.

8.

The application is dismissed.

Judge Belkhede RS