Samiroddin Nasiroddin Quazi vs The State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Kalamb, ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 16914 Bom

                                   1




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                  CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 249 OF 2021

          Samiroddin Nasiroddin Quazi @ Samir
          Quazi, Aged - 35years, Occ. Motor
          Mechanic,     R/o Tayade nagar,
          Nagpur road, Yavatmal, Tq. And Dist.
          Yavatmal.
                                                 ... APPELLANT

                                VERSUS

     1.   State of Maharashtra,
          Through P.S.O. Kalamb,
          Tq. Kalamb, Dist. Yavatmal.

     2.   Sau. Ranjana Naresh Keram,
          aged about - 20 years, Occ.
          Housewife, R/o Dongarkharda,
          Tq. Kalamb, Dist. Yavatmal.

                                              ... RESPONDENTS

_____________________________________________________________
       Shri Imran Deshmukh, Advocate for the appellant.
       Shri A. Kadukar, A.P.P. for respondent no.1-State.
       Respondent no. 2 is served.
______________________________________________________________

                           CORAM    :    VINAY JOSHI, J.

                           DATED    :    06.12.2021.

ORAL JUDGMENT        :



1.         Heard. ADMIT.

2. Heard both the parties and by consent matter is taken up for

final hearing. Learned A.P.P. would submit that as per the service

report dated 15.09.2021, the respondent no.2/informant-lady is duly

served, however, she remained absent in the proceedings.

3. The appellant is challenging the judgment and order of

rejection of pre-arrest bail dated 14.06.2021 passed in Criminal Bail

Application No.133 of 2021 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal

and prayed for grant of protection.

4. At the instance of report lodged by the victim-lady, the crime

bearing no.201 of 2021 with Kalamb Police Station District Yavatmal

for the offence punishable under Sections 354-B, 452 of the Indian

Penal Code and Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short,

hereinafter referred to as 'the SC and ST Act'), has been registered. It is

her case that on 04.05.2021, in the afternoon, the appellant who is a

Motor Mechanic came to her house with repaired Auto Rickshaw

owned by victim's husband. According to the informant-lady, at that

time while she was preparing Tea for the appellant, the later pulled her

saree and accordingly, outraged her modesty.

5. The respondent no.1-State resisted bail by filing reply

affidavit. The contents of First Information Report have been narrated

in brief. It is stated that the appellant has outraged modesty of the

informant, which is a serious offence. Moreover, it is contended that

due to statutory bar created under Section 18-A of the SC and ST Act,

the appellant is not entitled for pre-arrest protection.

6. Learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that the

contains of First Information Report nowhere discloses that the

appellant was aware about the caste of the informant. It is submitted

that the victim is the resident of village Dongarkharda, Taluka Kalamb

whilst the appellant is the resident of Yavatmal. The appellant was a

Motor Mechanic, who had visited the victim's house only for returning

the repaired vehicle. Since there was no old acquaintance, the

appellant's knowledge about the caste of the victim, is a matter of

consideration. Having regard to the case put-forth by the victim, prima

facie it is difficult to hold that the appellant had a knowledge that the

victim is a member of the scheduled caste or scheduled tribe.

7. As regards to rest of the allegations, it is submitted that on

account of quarrel erupted due to payment of repairing charges, false

report has been lodged. It reveals that the allegations are about pulling

saree at victim's residential house. Pertinent to note that the victim's

husband was an Auto Driver and was having auto, still the report was

lodged on the second day by stating that there were no means of

conveyance. Having regard to the nature of allegations, there is no

necessity of custodial interrogation. In view of that a case is madeout

for grant of pre-arrrest protection, hence the following order :

(a) The Criminal Appeal stands allowed.

(b) The impugned judgment and order of dated 14.06.2021 passed in Criminal Bail Application No. 133 of 2021 by Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal, is hereby quashed and set aside.

(c) Ad-interim order dated 30.06.2021 is hereby made absolute upon same terms and conditions.

(d) The appellant/accused shall attend concerned Police Station as and when called.

JUDGE

Trupti

TRUPTI SANTOSHJI AGRAWAL

08.12.2021 10:17