Rajendra Dajirao Mhamunkar vs The State Of Maharashtra
2017 Latest Caselaw 2112 Bom

                                                                                  9. cri apeal 381-17.doc


RMA      
                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 381 OF 2017


            Rajendra Dajirao Mhamunkar                                    .. Appellant

                                 Versus
            The State of Maharashtra                                      .. Respondent

                                                  ...................
            Appearances
            Mr. Rahul M. More Advocate for the Appellant
            Mr. H.J. Dedhia   APP for the State
                                                   ...................



                              CORAM       : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
                                              M.S. KARNIK, JJ.

DATE : MAY 2, 2017.

ORAL ORDER [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :

1. Heard both sides.

2. This appeal is preferred by the appellant against the

order dated 22.3.2017 passed by the learned Judge, Special

Court, Mangaon, District Raigad in Criminal Misc. Application

No. 33/2017. By the said order, Criminal Misc. Application

No. 33/2017 preferred by the appellant seeking anticipatory

bail in C.R. No. 40/2017 of Mangaon Police Station came to

jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 3

9. cri apeal 381-17.doc

be rejected. The said case is under Sections 326, 504 and

506 of IPC and under Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and Section 3(2)(va)

of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

3. The case of the first informant is that she went to the

house of the appellant and asked post i.e donation on

account of holi festival. At that time, the appellant abused

her and humiliated her. The appellant told her that she

belongs to 'Katkari Samaj', hence she should not stand in his

door. The appellant further insulted her. Thereafter, the

appellant assaulted her with stick. Due to the assault, she

sustained two injuries:- one was swelling 6 cms x 5 cms on

the right cheek and the second injury was fracture of the

neck humerus which was grievous in nature. The medical

certificate clearly shows that she had sustained fracture,

hence, Section 326 of IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of S.C. & S.T.

Act are clearly attracted.

jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                                  2 of 3





                                                             9. cri apeal 381-17.doc

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the

husband of the first informant was distilling and selling illicit

liquor in the village and the appellant had told him to stop

his illicit liquor business. The learned counsel for the

appellant submitted that it is on account of this act, that the

false FIR has been lodged against the appellant.

5. As stated earlier, the first informant has clearly

sustained grievous injury on account of the act of the

appellant. This clearly falls under Section 3(2)(va) of the S.C.

& S.T. Act as well as under Section 326 of IPC. As the case

falls under Section 3(2)(va) of the S.C. & S.T. Act, there is a

bar under Section 18 to grant anticipatory bail. Hence, the

prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. The appeal is

dismissed.

[ M.S. KARNIK, J. ]                   [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]




jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                          3 of 3