Bombay High Court
Shivaji S/O Santosh Jadhao And ... vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Dhad Tah. ... on 17 August, 2021
Bench: V. G. Joshi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 166 OF 2021
AND
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 167 OF 2021
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 166 OF 2021
Santosh s/o Tukaram Jadhao
Aged about 62 years,
Occ.- Agriculturist, R/o at Village
Moundhala, Post Mhasla (Bk.), Tq. And
Distt. Buldhana.
... APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra, through
Police Station Officer,
Police Station Dhad, Tq. And
Distt. Buldhana.
2. Manoj s/o Shaligram Kharat ,
aged about 26 years, Occ.
Agriculturist, R/o at Village
Moundhala, Post Mhasla (Bk.),
Tq. and Distt. Buldhana.
... RESPONDENTS
AND
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 167 OF 2021
1. Shivaji s/o Santosh Jadhao
Aged about 40 years,
Occ.- Agriculturist,
::: Uploaded on - 18/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2021 10:45:31 :::
2
2. Tanaji @ Kailash s/o Santosh Jadhao,
aged about 35 years, Occupation :
Agriculturist
Both the appellants are R/o at Village
Moundhala, Post Mhasla (Bk.), Tq. And
Distt. Buldhana. (the appellants are in
jail)
... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra, through
Police Station Officer,
Police Station Dhad, Tq. And
Distt. Buldhana.
2. Manoj s/o Shaligram Kharat ,
aged about 26 years, Occ.
Agriculturist, R/o at Village
Moundhala, Post Mhasla (Bk.),
Tq. and Distt. Buldhana.
... RESPONDENTS
_____________________________________________________________
Shri N.B. Kalwaghe, Advocate for the Appellants.
Shri A.M. Deshpande, A.P.P. for the respondent no.1-State.
Shri M.V. Rai, Advocate for Respondent no.2.
______________________________________________________________
CORAM : VINAY JOSHI, J.
DATED : 17/08/2021
JUDGMENT :
Heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties.
2. ADMIT. By consent of learned Counsel appearing for the
parties, the appeal is taken up for final hearing.
3. Both these appeals are arising out of Crime No.45 of 2021
registered with Dhad Police Station, District Buldhana for the offence
punishable under Sections 294, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(g), 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989(for
short 'the SC and ST Act'). Appellant Santosh Jadhao in Criminal
Appeal No.166 of 2021 is seeking for pre-arrest bail whilst appellants
Shivaji Jadhao and Tanaji Jadhao in Criminal Appeal No.167 of 2021
are seeking for regular bail. Their respective bail applications were
rejected by the Trial Court, therefore, these appeals.
4. With the assistance of both sides, contents of First
Information Report have been gone into. It appears that there was a
land dispute in between the parties since they are neighboring land
holders. It is alleged that on 02.03.2021, around 4.00 pm, appellants
have tried to make encroachment on the land belonging to the
informant. At that time, they have abused the informant in filthy
language and also abused in the name of caste and man handled the
informant and his mother.
5. Learned Counsel appearing for appellants has primely argued
that so far as, appellant Santosh Jadhao is concerned, there is no
mention about abusing by him in the name of caste. Moreover, it is
argued that the occurrence was in the field, where no independent
witness was present. Lastly, it is submitted that, due to land dispute,
false allegations have been leveled about intended encroachment. As
regards to appellants in Criminal Appeal No.167 of 2021 is concerned,
it is argued that they have already faced custodial interrogation, hence,
their detention is no more required.
6. Learned A.P.P. for respondent no.1/State as well as Shri M.V.
Rai, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.2/informant resisted
both appeals.
7. It is contended that the First Information Report contains
sufficient material to constitute the offence punishable under the SC
and ST Act. Learned A.P.P. has pointed out a statement of one
witnesses namely 'A' dated 23.03.2021, which bears a reference about
abuses given by Shivaji Jadhao and Tanaji Jadhao.
8. The criteria for considering the entitlement for pre-arrest bail
under special Act, are having distinct feature. There is no allegation
against appellant Santosh Jadhao of giving abuses particularly, in the
name of caste. Moreover, First Information Report is silent, whether
any independent person was present at the time of occurrence. It has
been ruled by this Court in the case of Pradnya Kenkare vs. State of
Maharashtra 2005(3) Mh.L.J. 368 that in order to constitute the
offence punishable under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC and ST
Act, both ingredients namely place accessible to and in the presence of
public is necessary. Therefore, from the view point of appellant
Santosh, there is no prima facie material to constitute the offence under
Special Act.
9. As regards to appellants Shivaji Jadhao and Tanaji Jadhao
are concerned, already they have been arrested and faced custodial
interrogation. From the nature of report, it is apparent that, nothing is
to be seized at their instance. Having regard to all these circumstances,
both appeal deserves to be allowed. Hence the following order :
(a) Criminal Appeal No.166 of 2021 stands allowed.
(i) The impugned order dated 17.03.2021 passed in Criminal
Bail Application No.60 of 2021 by Additional Sessions
Judge and Special Judge, Buldhana, is hereby quashed and
set aside.
(ii) Ad-interim order dated 08.04.2021 is hereby made absolute
on same term and conditions with a further direction to
continue to attend the concerned Police Station as directed
earlier, till filing of the charge-sheet.
(b) Criminal Appeal No.167 of 2021 stands allowed.
(i) The impugned order dated 31.03.2021 passed in Criminal
Bail Application No.71 of 2021 by Additional Sessions
Judge and Special Judge, Buldhana is hereby quashed and
set aside.
(ii) Ad-interim order dated 08.04.2021 is hereby made absolute
on same term and conditions.
JUDGE
Trupti
