Bombay High Court
Baidabai Namdev Pilane And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra on 27 April, 2017
Bench: V.K. Tahilramani
1. cri apeal 307-17.doc
RMA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 307 OF 2017
1. Baidabai Namdeo Pilane
2. Rajesh Namdeo Pilane .. Appellants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
...................
Appearances
Mr. Kuldip Patil i/by
Mr. Prashant S. Hagare Advocate for the Appellants
Mr. H.J. Dedhia APP for the State
...................
CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
M.S. KARNIK, JJ.
DATE : APRIL 27, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :
1. Heard both sides.
2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants
against the order dated 23.3.2017 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-1, Baramati in Anticipatory Bail
jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 4
::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 29/04/2017 00:35:00 :::
1. cri apeal 307-17.doc
Application No. 122/2017. The appellants had sought
anticipatory bail in FIR No. 161/2017 of Yavat Police Station.
The said FIR is under Sections 3(1)(r) & (s) of the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989 as well as under Sections 323, 504 and 506 r/w 34
of IPC. By the said order, the anticipatory bail application of
both the appellants came to be rejected.
3. The case of the complainant Tukaram is that the
present appellants along with others abused him in relation
to his caste and assaulted him and his wife. On perusal of
the FIR, it is noticed that as far as appellant No. 1 Baidabai is
concerned, no role is attributed to her of abusing the
complainant or his wife in relation to their caste. The said
role is attributed only to appellant No. 2 Rajesh. In relation
to this, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that
even as per the complainant, the act of appellant No. 2 of
abusing the complainant in relation to his caste has taken
place inside the house of the complainant. He further
jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 4
::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 29/04/2017 00:35:00 :::
1. cri apeal 307-17.doc
pointed out that there is no material to show that the
incident took place within public view.
4. On perusal of the FIR, prima facie, we find much merit
in this submission, hence, Section 3(1)(r) and (s) of the SC &
ST Act are not attracted. Hence, the bar under Section 18 of
the said Act would not apply. Looking to the facts of this
case and the fact that even as per the complainant, the
injuries caused are simple in nature, we are inclined to grant
anticipatory bail to the appellants. Hence, we proceed to
pass the following order:-
ORDER
i. In the event of arrest, each of the the
appellants to be released on bail in the sum of
Rs. 25000/- each [ Rs. Twenty Five Thousand
each ] with one or two sureties to make up the
said amount and P.R. Bond in like amount.
ii. The appellants shall report to Yavat Police
Station between 11.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. for a
period of seven days from 4.5.2017 and
jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 4
1. cri apeal 307-17.doc
thereafter the appellants shall attend the
Police Station as and when required.
5. The appeal is allowed in the above terms.
[ M.S. KARNIK, J. ] [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]
jfoanz vkacsjdj 4 of 4
