In a recent development, the Bombay High Court has granted bail to an appellant who had lodged an appeal challenging the rejection of their bail application under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The case in question pertains to a series of serious charges, with the appellant seeking release from custody.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Gauri Godse adjudicated the matter, noting the presence of conflicting accounts in the case. The Court took into consideration the appellant's custody since June 8, 2020, spanning over three years, during which charges had not been framed.
Brief Facts of the Case:
The case at hand involved an appeal filed under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The appellant seeks to challenge the order dated February 18, 2022, issued by the Special Judge in Pune. The appellant's application (Exhibit 15) for bail was rejected by the lower court. The charges against the appellant pertain to a case registered under several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including 302 (murder), 143 (unlawful assembly), 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting with a deadly weapon), and 149 (unlawful assembly with a common objective). In addition, charges were invoked under various sections of the SCST Act, including 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va), along with sections of the Maharashtra Police Act, namely 37(1) and 135.
Contentions of the Parties:
The appellant's counsel argued that there exists a contradiction between the statement given by the first informant and the statements provided by eyewitnesses. The defence highlighted that the appellant was not armed during the incident in question. It was further contended that the deceased sustained a single head injury, resulting in his death, subsequent to a confrontation between the accused and the deceased.
However, the Assistant Public Prosecutor (A.P.P.) opposed the grant of bail, asserting that the order rejecting the appellant's bail application should remain unaltered.
The defence also emphasized the appellant's prolonged custody, spanning over three years since June 8, 2020, during which charges had not been framed.
Observations of the Court:
The Court acknowledged its earlier decision to grant regular bail to the co-accused in light of the contradictions between the deceased's statement to the first informant and the testimonies of eyewitnesses.
Reviewing the statement made by the first informant, which included an alleged oral dying declaration by the deceased implicating six individuals in the assault, the Court delved into the intricate details of the case, including the roles attributed to each accused. Additional statements from witnesses were also analyzed during the proceedings.
In its deliberation, the Court noted the inconsistency in the appellant's purported role and the protracted duration of their custody without formal charges being framed.
The decision of the Court:
Considering these factors, the Court granted the appellant's appeal, overturning the order passed by the Special Judge. The impugned order was set aside, allowing for the appellant's release from custody. It is worth noting that the Court highlighted the preliminary nature of its observations and directed the trial Court to decide the case on its merits, devoid of any influence from the current order.
Case Name: Sagar @ Nikhil Jagdish Kate vs The State of Maharashtra
Coram: Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Gauri Godse
Case No.: Criminal Appeal NO. 440 of 2022
Advocates of the Petitioners: Mr. Niranjan Mundargi i/b Ms. Keral Mehta
Advocates of the Respondent: Ms. P. P. Shinde, A.P.P for the Respondent No.1-State Mr. Niranjan Mogre i/b Mr. Sujay H. Gangal for the Respondent No. 2 PSI Mr. S.S. Khalate from Sangli Police Station, is present in Court
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
