Laxminarayan Nanayya Raut And One vs The State Of Mah., Thr. P.S.O. P.S. ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 163 Bom

                                            1                               cr-appeal-665-19j.odt



              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

                        CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 665 OF 2019

  1. Laxminarayan Nanayya Raut,
     Aged 51 years, Occ. Agriculture,
     R/o. Vyenhkatraopetha,
     Tah. Aheri, Dist. Gadchiroli.

  2. Sau Vimlabai Laxminarayan Raut,
     Aged 42 years, Occ. Household,
     R/o. Vyenhkatraopetha,
     Tah. Aheri, Dist. Gadchiroli.                                        . . . APPELLANTS

                         ...V E R S U S..

  1. The State of Maharashtra through
     Police Station Officer,
     Police Station Aheri,
     Dist. Gadchiroli.

  2. Ku. Jyoti Bapu Aalam,
     Aged about 19 years, Occ. Household,
     R/o. Vyenhkatraopetha,
     Tah. Aheri, Dist. Gadchiroli.                                     . . . RESPONDENTS

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Shri A. R. Fule, Advocate for appellants.
 Shri T. A. Mirza, A.P.P. for respondent no. 1/State.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               CORAM :- Z. A. HAQ AND
                                        AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.

DATED :- 05.01.2021

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : AMIT B. BORKAR, J.) :-

1. Heard.

2. Admit.

2 cr-appeal-665-19j.odt

3. This appeal under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and

the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short "the

Act of 1989") against the order of rejection of pre-arrest bail dated

25.09.2019 in Criminal Bail Application No. 416/2019 passed by the

Additional Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli arising out of Crime No.

165/2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 323 and 417

of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 4, 5(l) and 6 of the Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 3(i)(w)(i)(ii) ,

3(1)(r) and 3(2)(v) of the Act of 1989.

4. The First Information Report (FIR) came to be registered

against the appellants on 07.08.2019 with the allegations that the

appellants, who are parents of Chiranjiv Laxminarayan Raut, who had

physical relationship with the respondent no. 2. It is alleged in the FIR

that the appellants refused to accept the respondent no. 2 in their

house on the ground that the respondent no. 2 belongs to "Gond"

community. The appellants therefore, moved an application before the

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli under Section 438 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure seeking pre-arrest bail. The learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli rejected the said application

mainly on the ground that Section 18A of the Act of 1989 does not

permit grant of pre-arrest bail. The appellants have therefore filed the

present appeal.

3 cr-appeal-665-19j.odt

5. This Court on 04.10.2019 issued notices to the respondents

and protected the appellants. The respondent no. 2 is served with

notice on 07.11.2020. Inspite of service, the respondent no. 2 has not

appeared either in person or through her Advocate.

6. We have gone through the contents of the FIR and in

particular the allegations made against the appellants. After careful

consideration of allegations against the present appellants, we are

satisfied that prima-facie the allegations in the FIR does not constitute

offence under the provisions of Act of 1989. The appellants were

protected by the order dated 04.10.2019. It is not pointed out that the

appellant have misused the liberty granted to them by the order dated

04.10.2019. It is also not pointed out by the prosecution that custodial

interrogation of the appellants is necessary. The appellants in

paragraph no. 5 of the appeal have stated that the appellants have no

criminal antecedent to their discredit. Taking into consideration the

above circumstances, we are of the view that the order of interim

protection granted by this Court on 04.10.2019 deserves to be

confirmed. We therefore, pass the following order :-

(i) The impugned order dated 25.09.2019 passed by

Additional Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli in Cri. Bail Application No.

416/2019 is quashed and set aside.

                                    4                          cr-appeal-665-19j.odt



 (ii)           The order dated 04.10.2019 passed by this Court is

confirmed subject to condition that the appellants shall co-operate with

the investigation.

The Criminal Appeal is allowed in the above terms.

                JUDGE                                          JUDGE

 RR Jaiswal