Bombay High Court grants relief to Shiv Sena (Shinde) leader booked for remarks against journalist

The Bombay High Court granted on Monday granted anticipatory bail to Waman Barku Mhatre, a leader of the Shiv Sena (Shinde faction), accused of making derogatory remarks against a woman journalist from the Buddha community while she was covering a protest related to a sexual assault case in Badlapur [Waman Barku Mhatre v State of Maharashtra].

Singe-judge Justice Sandeep Marne observed 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) since there was no intention on his part to humiliate the woman based on her caste.

“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,” the Court said.

The incident occurred on August 20 when the journalist, with over ten years of experience at a Marathi daily, was reporting on the protests following the sexual assault of two minor children in a school in Badlapur.

Mhatre allegedly interrupted her and a colleague at Badlapur Railway Station, making disparaging comments about her reporting and questioning its authenticity. He purportedly suggested that she was reporting as if she had been raped.

The charges against Mhatre included 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 denied Mhatre’s bail application, citing the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, which prohibits anticipatory bail if a prima facie case is established. Mhatre then approached the High Court.

His counsel argued that the case against him was weak and that Mhatre had no prior knowledge of the journalist’s caste and that his comments were not intended to insult her.

He emphasized the lack of video evidence, noting that a colleague's attempt to record the incident failed. Additionally, he pointed out that the journalist claimed her original statement was misrepresented in the FIR.

In contrast, the complainant's counsel contended that the elements of the offences were clearly established and highlighted the public nature of the incident.

They argued that Mhatre's comments were intended to humiliate her based on her caste and requested the Court to dismiss the appeal, citing concerns over potential threats to the complainant.

The Additional Public Prosecutor also opposed the bail, referencing ongoing investigations and a witness's statement about the failed video recording attempt.

Ultimately, the High Court granted anticipatory bail after examining the FIR.

The Court found no clear link between Mhatre’s statements and the complainant’s caste.

“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,” the Court held.

Regarding the alleged threats, the Court determined that there was insufficient evidence to suggest Mhatre posed a threat to the complainant.

“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 said.

Thus, the Court set aside the earlier order denying bail, concluding that the bar under Section 18 of the SC & ST Act did not apply in this case.

Advocates Viresh Purwant, Rushikesh Kale, Rajendra Bamane and AK Sheikh appeared for Mhatre.

Additional Public Prosecutor Shilpa K Gajare-Dhumal appeared for the State.

Advocates Samir Vaidya, Vinod Satpute, Sheetal Satpute, Tejali Jagdhone and Lubdha Bhoir appeared for the journalist.

[Read Order]