Aditi Arun Shinde And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra
2017 Latest Caselaw 4727 Bom

                                    * 1/6 *        902-APEAL-610-2017.doc

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                   CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.610 OF 2017


Aditi Arun Shinde and Ors.                                       ....Appellants

                 V/s.

The State of Maharashtra                                         .......Respondent


Mr. Prakash N. Wagh, Advocate for Appellants.
Mr. H.J.Dedhia , APP for Respondent-State.


                          CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, &
                                  SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.

DATE : July 19, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT : [Per Smt. V.K.Tahilramani, J.]

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-

original accused nos.1 to 3 and the learned APP for the

State.

2 This appeal has been preferred by the

appellants being aggrieved by the order dated 5.7.2017

passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Thane

in the Anticipatory Bail Application preferred by the

appellants. By the said order, application of the appellants Shivgan

* 2/6 * 902-APEAL-610-2017.doc

for anticipatory bail in C.R.No.I-107 of 2017 of Mira Road

Police Station under Sections under Sections 143, 147, 149,

354, 324, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code and under

Sections 3(1), 2, 3(1)(x) and (xi) of the S.C. & S.T.

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 came to be rejected. It

is the case of the complainant that she belongs to

scheduled tribe.

3 On 16.3.2017, persons from Municipal

Corporation demolished unauthorized shed of the

appellants. Appellant Nos.1 and 2 are wife and husband

and the appellant no.3 is brother of appellant no.1.

Complainant went and opened the gate of the society

hence, appellants got annoyed and abused her in relation

to her caste and gave her fist blows. Appellant No.3

embraced her and appellant no.2 tore her blouse and

pressed her chest. Hence, she lodged complaint.

4 As far as the allegation of abuse in relation to

caste is concerned, the complainant has not mentioned in

the FIR that she belongs to scheduled tribe and that any of

Shivgan

* 3/6 * 902-APEAL-610-2017.doc

the appellants abused her in relation to her caste. It is only

after some days for the first time she came up with the

story that the appellants abused her in relation to her caste

hence, her supplementary statement was recorded after

many days after the incident and thereafter section relating

to the Atrocity Act was added. We are of the opinion that

false allegations have been made by way of an

afterthought against the appellants in relation to giving

abuses to the complainant in relation to her caste.

5 There are allegations in the FIR that the

appellant nos.2 and 3 committed an offence under Section

3(1)(xi) of the Atrocity Act. It is noticed that in the FIR,

complainant has stated that the appellant no.3 embraced

her and at that time, appellant no.2 tore her blouse and

pressed her chest. As far as this allegation is concerned,

when according to the complainant, appellant no.3 had

embraced her in such condition, it was not possible for the

appellant no.2 to tear her blouse and press her chest. In

the FIR, the complainant does not state that the appellant

no.3 embraced her from behind. On reading the FIR, it

Shivgan

* 4/6 * 902-APEAL-610-2017.doc

appears that appellant no.3 embraced her from the front

side in which case it was not possible for the appellant no.2

to do the act as stated by the complainant in the FIR.

6 Another important aspect which is to be noted is

that firstly, the appellant no.1-Aditi Shinde lodged FIR

being C.R.No.106 of 2017 against the complainant in the

present case. Thereafter, the complainant in the present

case has lodged C.R.No.107 of 2017 against the present

appellants. In FIR, i.e. C.R.No.106 of 2017, the appellant

no.1-Aditi Shinde (Complainant) has stated that on

16.3.2017 at 12.15 am , she was informed that persons

from the Municipal Corporation were demolishing the

property in their land hence, they went to the spot. By that

time, Corporation officers and workers completed

demolition and were leaving the spot. The Appellant No.1

in her FIR stated that Manjula Patel i.e. the complainant in

the present case along with others started throwing her

belongings. When the appellant no.1-Aditi Shinde

questioned Manjula Patel and others about what they were

doing, they abused her and assaulted her with fists blows.

Shivgan

* 5/6 * 902-APEAL-610-2017.doc

Manjula Patel assaulted Aditi Shinde with wooden log.

Umesh Patel assaulted Aditi Shinde with an iron rod. On

account of assault, Aditi Shinde sustained injury to her

hand. It is noticed that medical reports of Aditi Shinde in

C.R.No.106/2017 shows that she had sustained fracture of

hand. Looking to this fact, we find much merit in the

submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that

the FIR No.107/2017 was lodged by Manjula Patel against

the appellants as counter blast to the FIR No.106/2017

lodged by Aditi Shinde. Thus, we are of the opinion that

even the allegation under Section 3(1)(xi) has been falsely

made against the appellant nos.2 and 3 by way of counter-

blast. As stated earlier, appellant no.2 is husband of the

appellant No.1-Aditi Shinde and the appellant no.3 is

brother of Aditi Shinde.

7 Looking to all the above facts, we are of the

opinion that C.R.No.107 of 2017 has been lodged by

making false allegations against the appellants by way of

counter blast to C.R.No.106 of 2017 which was lodged by

appellant no.1 against the complainant-Manjula Patel in

Shivgan

* 6/6 * 902-APEAL-610-2017.doc

C.R.No.107 of 2017. Looking to the above facts, we are

inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the appellants, hence,

the following order:

(I) In the event of arrest, each of the appellants be released on bail in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties to make up the said amount and PR Bond of like amount.

(II) Each of the appellants shall report to Mira Road Police Station every day from 26.7.2017 for a period of 10 days from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. and thereafter as and when required by the Investigating Officer.

8 Appeal is allowed in the above terms.

(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J) (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J)

Shivgan