The Bombay High Court allowed the appeal challenging the Judgment and Order dated 08/09/2020 passed by the Special Judge under the SCST Act, in Criminal Anticipatory Bail.
Brief Facts:
There was some dispute between the appellants and the respondents concerning the access road to Respondent No.2’s house and the allegations by Appellant No. 2 that Respondent No.2 had damaged her flower pots. It was alleged that the appellants abused Respondent No.2 regarding the latter’s caste and later assaulted him and his daughter with a stick.
Initially, Respondent No. 2 did not lodge FIR as he was pacified by other residents. In the meantime, the Appellants lodged their FIR on 17/06/2020. It is further alleged that on 26/07/2020, Appellant No.2 poured dirty water on Respondent No.2’s daughter. Therefore, finally, Respondent No. 2 lodged his FIR.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The Learned Counsel for the Appellant argued that the FIR lodged by the respondent was a counterblast to the FIR lodged by Appellant No.2. The Counsel pointed to the fact that the FIR and NC of the respondent were filed after the filing of FIR and NC by the Appellant No. 2. Further, the counsel alleged that the Respondent No.2 has suppressed the important facts in the FIR.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned Counsels for the Respondent argued that an offense under the Atrocities Act is made out and therefore the bar u/s 18 of the said Atrocities Act will operate and anticipatory cannot be granted to the Appellants. They argued that the FIR was not restricted to the incident dated 10/06/2020 but there was a reference to an incident dated 26/07/2020 when Appellant No.2 had allegedly poured dirty water on Respondent No.2’s daughter.
Observations of the Court
The Court observed that the FIR against the Appellants does not make any reference as to how Appellant No.2 had suffered injuries whereas the injury certificate shows that Appellant No.2 had suffered some injuries. Thus, Respondent No.2 has suppressed some important facts in his FIR. The FIR itself was lodged belatedly on 06/08/2020. Even the first complaint made on 20/06/2020 by Respondent No.2 to the police was made after the NC dated 18/06/2020 was lodged by Respondent No.2’ daughter.
The Court observed that there is scope to believe that the allegations in the FIR are the result of the grudge that Respondent No.2 was holding against the Appellants and there is exaggeration about the important aspects. Therefore, reasonable doubt is created about the case of Respondent No.2.
The decision of the Court:
The Bombay High Court, allowing the appeal, held that since reasonable doubt is created about the case of Respondent No.2, it would not be fair to deny the relief of anticipatory bail to the Appellants. The Court ordered that in the event of their arrest, the Appellants are directed to be released on bail on their furnishing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- each, with one or two sureties each, in the like amount.
Case Title: Santosh Dattaram Chavan & Ors. vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Sarang V. Kotwal
Case no.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 270 OF 2021
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Saurabh Butala
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. S. R. Agarkar and Ms. Gayatri Gokhale
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
