Shri. Suryakant Sonu Khotkar vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 6369 Bom

Dusane                                  1/12        appeals 113,114.21.doc

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                           CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 113 OF 2021



     Shri. Suryakant Sonu Khotkar
     Age : 72 years, Occ. : Nil
     R/at Khotkar Mala, Ozar,
     Tal. Niphad, District Nashik              ....      Appellant

                     Vs.

     1. The State of Maharashtra
        Through its Deputy Superintendent
        of Police, Niphad Rural,
        Nashik.

     2. Smt. Suman Shivaji Bhadke
        Age : 60 years, Occ.: Labourer,
        R/o : Near BSNL Office,
        Ozar                                   ....      Respondents

                                    ALONGWITH
                           CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 114 OF 2021


     Shri. Yogesh Ashok Khotkar
     Age : 30 Years, Occ.: Business
     R/at Khotkar Mala, Ozar,
     Tal. Niphad, District Nashik
                                               ....      Appellant
                     Vs.

     1. The State of Maharashtra
        Through its Deputy Superintendent



         ::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2021                ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2021 00:56:28 :::
 Dusane                                   2/12           appeals 113,114.21.doc

          of Police, Niphad Rural,
          Nashik.

     2. Smt. Suman Shivaji Bhadke
        Age : 60 years, Occ.: Labourer,
        R/o : Near BSNL Office,
        Ozar, Tal. Niphad,
        District Nashik                            ....      Respondents

                                            .....

     Mr. Anuj Tiwari for Appellants.

     Mr. Karansingh Rajput appointed Advocate for Respondent No.2.
     Mrs. S.D. Shinde, APP for Respondent- State.


                              Coram : S.S. SHINDE AND
                                       MANISH PITALE, JJ.

JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 24.03.2021 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 09.04.2021

JUDGMENT : (PER MANISH PITALE, J.)

1. These are appeals filed by the original accused Nos. 5 and

7 challenging impugned order dated 12 th January, 2021 whereby the

Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Niphad ("the Sessions Court")

rejected the application for bail moved by the Appellants alongwith a

co-accused person.

Dusane 3/12 appeals 113,114.21.doc

2. In the present case, an F.I.R. dated 21st December, 2020

stood registered against the Appellants and co-accused persons for

offences under Sections 326, 324, 323, 504, 506, 143, 147 and 148

of the Indian Penal Code as also Sections 3(1)(r) (s) and 3(2)(v)(a)

of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989 ("Atrocities Act") and 135 of Mumbai Police Act.

3. As per the original informant (Respondent No.2) herein,

a 60 year old aged woman, the Appellants alongwith co-accused

persons came in front of her house. They abused her and her son in

the name of their caste and threatened them. The accused were

armed with wooden logs and when neighbours of the Respondent

No. 2 sought to intervene in the matter, the accused persons

including the Appellants herein assaulted the informant and her son

with wooden logs, stones and fists and kick blows. As a

consequence, the informant and others received injuries, for which

they had to be admitted to the hospital. In pursuance of registration

Dusane 4/12 appeals 113,114.21.doc

of the said F.I.R., the investigation was undertaken and statements of

witnesses were recorded.

4. The Appellants alongwith co-accused person moved bail

application before the Sessions Court. By the impugned order, the

application was rejected. The Sessions Court observed in the

impugned order that the complainant had specifically raised

grievance about injury by sharp edged weapon and yet the

investigating officer had not taken pains to recover such sharp-edged

weapon. The injury suffered by the informant and others were noted

and the Sessions Court observed that the Police machinery might be

under influence from the side of the accused persons and that there

was every likelihood of the witnesses being pressurised if the accused

persons, including the Appellants, were released on bail. After

making such observations, the Sessions Court rejected the bail

application of the Appellants by the impugned order.

 Dusane                                   5/12         appeals 113,114.21.doc

     5.               Mr.      Anuj Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the

Appellants in both these appeals invited our attention to the

aforesaid observations made in the impugned order passed by the

Sessions Court and vehemently submitted that the Sessions Court

had wrongly concluded that the investigating officer appeared to be

under the influence of the accused persons. It was submitted that

when the documents filed alongwith the charge-sheet dated 18th

February, 2021 revealed injuries to the injured persons only by blunt

objects like wooden sticks and stones, there was no basis for the

Sessions Court to have made aforesaid observations. According to

the learned counsel for the Appellants, the Sessions Court completely

misdirected itself but proceeding on the presumption that there were

sharp edged weapons used and recovery of the same was yet to be

made. According to the learned counsel for the Appellants, this

aspect influenced the decision of the Sessions Court and that the

material on record was not properly appreciated.

Dusane 6/12 appeals 113,114.21.doc

6. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellants invited

attention of this Court to the charge-sheet and the documents filed

therewith. It was submitted that the specific overt-acts were not

attributed to the Appellants and that they ought not to be continued

in custody on the basis of general allegations. It was further

submitted that since investigation was over and charge-sheet was

already filed, no further purpose would be served by keeping the

Appellants behind bars.

7 Mr. Karansingh Rajput, learned counsel appointed for

appearing on behalf of Respondent No.2 (original informant),

submitted that even if there were certain observations made in the

impugned order by the Sessions Court regarding injuries by sharp

edged weapons, that was not the only factor which influenced the

Sessions Court to reject the bail application of the Appellants. It was

submitted that the role of the Appellants was appreciated by the

Sessions Court on the basis of available material. It was further

submitted that the charge-sheet and the material available on record,

Dusane 7/12 appeals 113,114.21.doc

particularly the statements of witnesses, demonstrated that the

Appellants were present at the time of incident and that specific acts

were not indeed attributed to them. It was further submitted that

the medical documents on record demonstrated the nature of injuries

suffered by not only the informant but other victims also. On this

basis, it was submitted that the appeals deserve to be dismissed.

8. Mrs. S.D. Shinde, learned APP appeared for the

Respondent- State and she supported the impugned order passed by

the Sessions Court.

9. Heard learned counsel appearing for rival parties and

perused the material on record.

10. In the present case, offences have been registered against

the Appellants not only under the provisions of the Indian Penal

Code but also under the provisions of Atrocities Act.

Dusane 8/12 appeals 113,114.21.doc

11. A perusal of the statement made by the Respondent No. 2

(original informant), which led to registration of F.I.R. would show

that she had specifically described the manner in which the incident

took place. The Appellants before this Court were specifically named

in the F.I.R. The fact that the Appellants participated in the verbal

and actual assault on the complainant and other victims, was stated

in the F.I.R. A perusal of the statements of witnesses recorded during

the course of investigation, shows that the said witnesses have

consistently stated about the presence and role of the Appellants in

the incident that took place on 20 th December, 2020. The documents

filed alongwith the charge-sheet, particularly Medico-Legal

Certificates show that the informant and others suffered serious

injuries, including fractures and that such injuries were inflicted by

blunt objects like wooden sticks and stones.

12. It is significant that in the present case, as many as six

persons including the informant suffered injuries and one of them

suffered head injury also. The F.I.R. was registered against the

Dusane 9/12 appeals 113,114.21.doc

Appellants and other accused persons as they were members of an

unlawful assembly. Therefore, as long as presence of the Appellants

was specifically stated by the informant in her statement leading to

registration of F.I.R., as also witnesses during the course of

investigation, the contention raised on behalf of the Appellants that

they did not play any major role in the incident, can be of no

assistance for seeking bail.

13. The nature of injuries suffered by the victims including

informant, who is a 60 years old woman, shows the brutal manner in

which the assault was carried out and at this stage, the presence of

the Appellants alongwith other accused persons is prima facie made

out by the material on record.

14. In the present case, offences under the provisions of

Atrocities Act has also been registered against the Appellants. These

pertain to intentional insults, humiliation, intimidation and abuse

hurled against members of the scheduled caste and scheduled tribe

Dusane 10/12 appeals 113,114.21.doc

community and such offences being committed with the knowledge

that the victim belongs to such community. In the present case, the

manner in which verbal abuse pertaining to caste of the informant

was hurled at her, has been stated elaborately in her statement

leading to registration of F.I.R.. The statements of witnesses

recorded during the course of investigation also support the

aforesaid statement. This shows that not only were the Appellants

members of unlawful assembly that launched physical assault on the

informant and other victims, they were also prima facie part of the

insult, humiliation and verbal abuse launched against the informant

and other victims. In such a situation, it cannot be said that the

Sessions Court committed any error in rejecting the bail application

of the Appellants.

15. It is also gathered from the material on record that the

Appellants and the informant, as also the other victims are residents

of the same locality. This indicates that there is every possibility of

the Appellants pressurizing the informant and the witnesses if

Dusane 11/12 appeals 113,114.21.doc

released on bail and there is possibility of further untoward incidents

happening. This is another reason why the impugned order deserves

to be sustained.

16. Insofar as the contention raised on behalf of the

Appellants that the Sessions Court placed unnecessary emphasis on

alleged injuries suffered by the informant by sharp edged weapon

and failure of the investigating officer to recover the same, we are of

the opinion that even if the said observation was made, the Medico-

Legal certificates demonstrate in detail how the victims had suffered

serious bone injuries, as also fractures on vital parts of their bodies,

as a result of the assault launched by the unlawful assembly of

accused persons, of which the Appellants were alleged to be

members. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the aforesaid

contention raised on behalf of the Appellants.

17. In view of above, we find that there is no substance in the

present appeals. Accordingly, they are dismissed. Needless to say,

Dusane 12/12 appeals 113,114.21.doc

the observations made in the order are restricted to deciding the

present appeals.

18. We appreciate the assistance rendered by Mr. Karansingh

Rajput, learned Advocate appointed on behalf of the Respondent

No.2 (original informant). His fees for the appearance is quantified

at Rs.10,000/- to be paid within one month from receipt of this

order by High Court Legal Services Committee, Mumbai.

     ( MANISH PITALE, J.)                                     ( S.S. SHINDE, J.)