Hasan Jamir Shaikh vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 6393 Bom

Dusane                                  1/8             appeal 37.2021.doc

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                           CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 37 OF 2021


     Mr. Hasan Jamir Shaikh
     Age : 26 Years, Occ.: Labour,
     R/at Nangaon, Tal. Chakur,
     District Latur
     Presently lodged in Central Prison
     at Latur
                                                ....     Appellant
                     Vs.

     1. The State of Maharashtra
        Through Police Inspector,
        Bigwan Police Station, Dist. Pune

     2. Mrs. Parvati Nasim Kale
        Age : 30 years,
        R/at : At Post Shahunagar,
        Tal. Indapur, District Pune
                                                ....     Respondents
                                          .....

     Mr. Ranjeet M. Pawar for Appellant.
     Mrs. S.D. Shinde, APP for Respondent- State.
     Mr. Karl P. Rustomkhan appointed Advocate for Respondent No. 2


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

JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 22.03.2021 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 09.04.2021

Dusane 2/8 appeal 37.2021.doc

JUDGMENT : (PER MANISH PITALE, J.)

1. By this appeal filed under Section 14A of the Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

(hereinafter referred to as "Atrocities Act"), the Appellant has

challenged the order dated 1st June, 2020 passed by the Court of

Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati ("Sessions Court"), whereby

the bail application filed by the Appellant was rejected.

2. The Appellant is accused No.1 for offences registered

under Sections 394, 341, 376, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian

Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r)(s)(w), 3(2)(v-a) of the Atrocities

Act.

3. As per the F.I.R. registered at the behest of Respondent

No.2 (original informant), the Appellant alongwith two other

accused persons stopped the Respondent No.2 and her husband

Dusane 3/8 appeal 37.2021.doc

when they were travelling on a motorcycle. They threatened

husband of Respondent No. 2 with knife and thereafter took away

golden ornaments alongwith mobile handset as also cash. The

Appellant allegedly committed rape on Respondent No. 2.

Although the F.I.R. was initially registered against three unknown

persons, thereafter Respondent No.2 identified the accused

persons. The Appellant was arrested and on completion of

investigation, charge- sheet was filed.

4. The Appellant moved bail application before the

Sessions Court claiming that he was entitled to grant of bail

because the material brought on record alongwith chargesheet was

not sufficient to indicate involvement of the Appellant in the

crime. The Respondent State opposed the application filed by the

Appellant. By the impugned order, the Sessions Court rejected the

bail application, holding that the Appellant was not entitled for

grant of bail.

5. Mr. Ranjeet Pawar, learned counsel appearing for

Dusane 4/8 appeal 37.2021.doc

Appellant submitted that the Sessions Court committed an error in

rejecting the bail application of the Appellant for the reason that

the material on record was not sufficient to link the Appellant with

the incident in question. It was submitted that there were glaring

defects in the manner in which the identification parade was

carried out and that the Appellant was being wrongly implicated

in the present case. It was further submitted that there was no

recovery from the Appellant and there was no material to show

that offences under the provisions of the Atrocities Act could be

attracted on the allegations levelled by Respondent No. 2. It was

further submitted that the medical examination of Respondent No.

2 also did not support the allegations made against the accused

persons and that therefore the Appellant was entitled to grant of

bail.

6. Mr. Karl Rustomkhan, learned counsel appointed for

appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 2 submitted that the

alleged defects in identification parade could not be gone into at

Dusane 5/8 appeal 37.2021.doc

this stage and that the material on record was sufficient to indicate

involvement of the Appellant in the incident in question. It was

submitted that the offences alleged against the Appellant were

serious in nature and that therefore he did not deserve to be

enlarged on bail.

7. Mrs. S.D. Shinde, learned APP appeared on behalf of

Respondent- State and opposed the present appeal. The learned

APP brought to the notice of this Court that there are large

numbers of cases registered against the Appellant and that he is a

habitual offender. It is submitted that if the Appellant was granted

bail, there was every possibility of the informant and the witnesses

being pressurised by the Appellant.

8. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the

rival parties and perused the material on record. The F.I.R.,

statements of witnesses and other material placed on record

alongwith the charge-sheet show that the present case involves

Dusane 6/8 appeal 37.2021.doc

serious offence of rape and offences under the Atrocities Act.

Although the F.I.R. was registered against three unknown persons,

the Appellant subsequently identified the accused persons and

specifically alleged against the Appellant that he had committed

rape on her. The supplementary statement of the Respondent

No. 2 shows that she has levelled specific allegations against the

Appellant. The alleged defects in the procedure adopted during

the identification parade can be gone into later and at this stage, it

cannot be said that the Appellant deserves any benefit in that

regard. The Respondent No.2 has stated regarding the manner in

which the incident occurred and there are statements of witnesses

supporting her version.

9. The emphasis sought to be placed by the learned

counsel for the Appellant on medical report not supporting the

case of the Respondent No. 2, cannot be accepted at this stage for

the reason that there are injury certificates on record showing that

the informant and her husband did suffer injuries in the said

Dusane 7/8 appeal 37.2021.doc

incident. The extent to which the medical report will support the

case of prosecution, is a matter of evidence and the Appellant

cannot be granted benefit of the same at this stage.

10. It is significant that in the report forwarded by the

learned APP, it has come on record that as many as 19 cases have

been registered against the Appellant for serious offence, including

offences under Section 394 and 454 of Indian Penal Code. The

Appellant appears to be a person indulging in such crimes

frequently, thereby indicating that if he is released on bail, there is

possibility of the informant i.e. Respondent No. 2 and the

witnesses being pressurized. This is an additional reason for

which we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order

passed by the Sessions Court.

11. In view of above, the appeal is found to be without any

merits and accordingly dismissed.

12. We appreciate the assistance rendered by Mr. Karl P.

Dusane 8/8 appeal 37.2021.doc

Rustomkhan, learned Advocate appointed on behalf of the

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

is quantified at Rs.7,500/- 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.)