Sainath Kathod Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 16936 Bom

          Digitally
          signed by
          SHAMBHAVI
SHAMBHAVI NILESH                                                            21-APEAL-986-2021.odt
NILESH    SHIVGAN
SHIVGAN   Date:
          2021.12.06
          18:02:55
          +0530
                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.986 OF 2021

                       Sainath Kathod Patil                                ...Appellant
                             Vs
                       The State of Maharashtra & Anr.                    ... Respondents
                                                    ...

Mr. Arun Rajput with Mr. Bilal Mohorwala for the Appellant. Smt.M.R.Tidke, APP for the Respondent-State. Ms. Sonali Pawar i/by Sachin Patil for Original Complainant/R.No.2.

CORAM : SANDEEP K. SHINDE J.

DATE : DECEMBER 06, 2021.

P.C. :

Appellant, seeks pre-arrest protection in connection with

the Crime No.176 of 2021, registered with Ganeshpuri Police Station

for the offences, punishable under Sections 323, 341, 327, 384, 504,

506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s)

of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989 ('Act of 1989' for short).

                       Shivgan                                                                1/4
                                                  21-APEAL-986-2021.odt

2          Pending    application,   the   learned   Ad-hoc   Additional

Sessions Judge-01, Thane vide order dated 8 th November, 2021 had

granted, interim pre-arrest, protection to the appellant, which was in

force till 25th November, 2021.

3 Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the

learned Prosecutor for the State. Perused the impugned order.

4 Ms. Pawar for the respondent no.2-Complainant, seeks

time to file reply. It shall be filed within two weeks from today.

5 Apparently, there lies a dispute between the complainant

and the accused, in respect the land, sold by co-owner, Ramesh

Bhoir to the appellant. It is argued that, appellant has been falsely

implicated in the case to pressurise him with intention to obtain,

desired result in the civil dispute, pending between the parties and

therefore, allegations do not constitute offence under the Act of 1989.

6          The learned counsel for the appellant in support of his


Shivgan                                                              2/4
                                                   21-APEAL-986-2021.odt

contention, has relied on the judgment in the case of Hitesh Verma

v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr. in Criminal Appeal NO.707 of 2020

and invited my attention to paragraph 13 of the said judgment. It

reads as under:

"13 The offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act would indicate the ingredient of intentional insult and intimidation with an intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. All insults or intimidations to a person will not be an offence under the Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The object of the Act is to improve the socio-economic conditions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes as they are denied number of civil rights. Thus, an offence under Act would be made out when a member of the vulnerable section of the Society is subjected to indignities, humiliations and harassment. The assertion of title over the land by either of the parties is not due to either the indignities, humiliations or harassment. Every citizen has a right to avail their remedies in accordance with law. Therefore, if the appellant or his family members have invoked jurisdiction of the civil court, or that respondent no.2 has invoked the jurisdiction of the civil court, then the parties are availing their remedies in accordance with the procedure established by law. Such action is not for the reason that respondent no.2 is member of the Scheduled Caste."

7 In consideration of the facts of the case, prima-facie, I

am of the view that afore-stated observations in the cited judgment

Shivgan 3/4 21-APEAL-986-2021.odt

are applicable to the case in hand.

8 Thus, prima-facie, case is made out for granting ad-

interim pre-arrest protection till the returnable date. Therefore, in the

meanwhile, in the event of arrest of the appellant in the Crime

No.176 of 2021 registered with Ganeshpuri police station, he shall be

released on executing PR bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with one or

more sureties in the like amount.

9 Appellant shall join the investigation as and when called.

10          Stand over to 21st December, 2021.




                                          (SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.)




Shivgan                                                             4/4