Bombay High Court
Mahadeo @ Balu S/O. Janak Shinde vs The State Of Maharashtra on 27 January, 2021
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
(1) cria616&575-20
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.616/2020
Ashok @ Bhaiyya S/o Haribhau Shinde
Age : 23 years, Occu : Agri,
R/o Janegaon, Tq. Kaij, Dist.Beed. .. APPELLANT
VERSUS
1] The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Inspector,
Police Station, Yusuf Wadgaon,
Dist.Beed.
2] Vikas S/o Dashrath Ovhal,
Age 34 years, Occ : Labour
R/o Janegaon, Tq. Kaij, Dist.Beed. .. RESPONDENTS
....
Shri S.S.Thombre, Advocate for appellant
Shri P.G.Borade, A.P.P. for respondent no.1.
Shri R.D.Thorat, Advocate for respondent no.2.
....
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.575/2020
Mahadeo @ Balu S/o Janak Shinde
Age : 35 years, Occu : Agri,
Presently Residing at Post Janegaon,
Tq. Kaij, Dist.Beed.
(Appellant is under prison/in jail
at Sub Jail of Beed,Dist.Beed
Since 4/10/2020). .. APPELLANT
VERSUS
::: Uploaded on - 29/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 09/02/2021 01:08:03 :::
(2) cria616&575-20
1] The State of Maharashtra
Through Superintendent of Police
Beed.
2] Vikas S/o Dashrath Ovhal,
Age 34 years, Occ : Labour
R/o Janegaon, Tq. Kaij, Dist.Beed. .. RESPONDENTS
....
Shri M.A.Tandale, Advocate for appellant
Shri V.S.Badakh, A.P.P. for respondent no.1.
Shri R.D.Thorat, Advocate for respondent no.2.
....
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL, J.
DATE : 27.01.2021
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
Heard.
2] Admit. With the consent of both the sides, matter is heard finally at the
stage of admission.
3] These are the appeals under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and
the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "Atrocities
Act") by two of the accused from Crime No.200/2020 registered with Yusuf
Vadgaon Police Station, Tq. Kaij, Dist.Beed for the offences punishable under
Section 324 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(r) of the
Atrocities Act. By the impugned orders, the applicant in Criminal Appeal
No.575/2020 has been refused regular bail whereas the applicant in the
Criminal Appeal No.616/2020 has been refused anticipatory bail.
(3) cria616&575-20
4] The allegations are to the effect that the applicant Mahadeo had
intercepted informant whose wife happens to be a Sarpanch of the village
and started questioning him as to why he was overlooking cutting of the trees
in the school premises. He hurled abuse on the caste lines and forcibly took
him on the vehicle to the school premises. It is alleged that other applicant
Ashok Haribhau Shinde and one Ashok Fulchand Shinde arrived there and
assaulted him by hurling abuses. He was stabbed by Ashok Fulchand Shinde.
5] By the impugned orders the learned Special Judge refused anticipatory
bail to applicant Ashok and also refused regular bail to applicant Mahadeo.
6] The learned advocate for the applicant Mahadeo would submit that
except an allegation of hurling a single abuse on caste line, there are no other
allegations. He has already been in jail for 113 days. Going by the allegations
nothing is to be recovered from him or discovered by him. There are no
criminal antecedents. The trial is not likely to get over in the near future and
he ought to have been granted regular bail.
7] The learned advocate for the applicant Ashok submits that the assault
on the informant is attributed to the third accused Ashok Fulchand Shinde.
There was no pre meditation. Ashok Fulchand Shinde seems to have taken out
a knife from his two wheeler and stabbed the informant on the chest. The
injuries are not attributable to him. There are no criminal antecedents. He is
ready to cooperate the Investigating Officer. There is no need to have his
custodial interrogation and the learned Judge ought to have granted him
protection by way of anticipatory bail.
(4) cria616&575-20
8] The learned A.P.P. and the learned advocate for the original informant
oppose the appeals. They submit that the offence is serious. It is still under
investigation. The third accused is still to be arrested. The weapon is to be
recovered. Releasing the appellants on bail is certain to cause prejudice to the
Investigating Officer and create impediment in completing it.
9] I have carefully gone through the impugned orders and considered the
rival submissions. I have also undergone the papers of the investigation.
10] As can be appreciated the offence involves two incidents. In the first
incident applicant Mahadeo is stated to have intercepted the informant,
hurled an abuse on caste line and took him forcibly to the school premises.
He has been in jail for considerably long time. Trial is not likely to get over in
near future. There are no criminal antecedents.
11] The second episode seems to have ensued, wherein applicant Ashok
Haribhau Shinde and Ashok Fulchand Shinde abused the informant. Ashok
Fulchand Shinde stabbed him with a knife. Conspicuously there are no
allegations about applicant Ashok having hurled abuse on caste lines during
the second episode. The injuries sustained by the informant are also
attributable to Ashok Fulchand Shinde and not to the present applicant Ashok
Haribhau Shinde. Even the injuries are stated to be simple in nature.
12] Considering the aforementioned state of affairs, the learned Judge
ought to have easily granted regular bail to applicant Mahadeo and
anticipatory bail to applicant Ashok Haribhau Shinde considering the roles
(5) cria616&575-20
attributable to them.
13] The Appeals are allowed. The impugned orders are quashed and set
aside. Ad-interim reliefs granted in both the proceedings stand confirmed with
the same terms and conditions. Regular bail to be furnished by the applicant
Mahadeo before the trial Court.
[MANGESH S. PATIL, J.]
umg/
