Bombay High Court
Sudhakar S/I Vinayakrao Hood vs The State Of Mah, Thr. P.So. P.S. ... on 6 January, 2021
Bench: Z.A. Haq, Amit B. Borkar
12 apeal 259.19.odt
1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.259 OF 2019
Sudhakar S/o Vinayakrao Hood,
Aged : 55 years, Occu: Service
R/o. Snehal Nagar, Mhasala Road, Wardha,
Tahsil & District Wardha
M: 8007150543. ....APPELLANT
// VERSUS //
1. State of Maharashtra
Through P. S. O.Wardha City,
Wardha.
2. Ku. Snehal Prabhakarrao Dongre,
Aged about 33 years,
R/o Snehal Nagar, Wardha,
Tahsil & District Wardha. .... RESPONDENTS
Shri Sachin W. Sambre, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri S.V. Sirpurkar, Advocate for the respondent No.2.
Shri T. A. Mirza, A.P.P. for the respondent No.1/State.
_____________________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z. A. HAQ AND
AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
DATE : 06.01.2021
ORAL JUDGMENT: [PER: AMIT B. BORKAR, J.]
1. Heard.
2. Admit.
3. This is an appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
12 apeal 259.19.odt
1989 (for short "the Act of 1989") challenging the order dated 26 th
March, 2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Wardha in Misc.
Criminal Bail Application No.132/2019, thereby rejecting the pre-
arrest bail of the appellant in connection with Crime No.372/2019
registered on 18th March, 2019 for the offences punishable under
Sections 366, 376, 383, 384, 417, 420, 504 and 506 of the Indian
Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(xi) and 3(1)(xii) of the Act of 1989.
4. The First Information Report came to be registered
against the appellant with the accusations that the appellant had
sexually exploited the respondent No.2 on the promise of marriage.
The appellant, therefore, moved the learned Sessions Judge,
Wardha by way of Misc. Criminal Bail Application No.132/2019
under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The
application was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Wardha
mainly on the ground of the bar contained under Section 18-A of
the Act of 1989. The appellant has therefore, filed the present
appeal challenging the order dated 26th March, 2019.
5. This Court on 2nd April, 2019 issued notice to the
respondents and granted protection to the appellant subject to the
conditions stated in the said order.
12 apeal 259.19.odt
6. We have heard Shri Sachin Sambre, learned Advocate for
the appellant, Shri S.V. Sirpurkar, learned Advocate for the
respondent No.2 and Shri T. A. Mirza, A.P.P. for the respondent
No.1/State.
7. Having carefully considered the contents of the First
Information Report, it appears that the respondent No.2 (aged
about 35 years) was in relationship with the appellant from 2014.
The First Information Report came to be registered on 18 th March,
2019.
8. We have considered the contents of the complaint in the
context of the offences under the provisions of the Act of 1989 and
prima-facie, we find that the allegations made against the appellant
does not constitute the offences under the provisions of the Act of
1989. The appellant in paragraph No.8 of the appeal memo has
stated that there are no criminal antecedents to the discredit of the
appellant. The prosecution has not pointed out that the appellant
has misused liberty granted by the order dated 2 nd April, 2019. The
prosecution has not pointed out that custodial interrogation is
necessary.
9. Having considered the aforesaid circumstances, we find
12 apeal 259.19.odt
that the order dated 2nd April, 2019 granting protection to the
appellant deserves to be confirmed.
10. We therefore, pass the following order:
(i) The impugned order dated 26th March, 2019 passed by
the learned Sessions Judge, Wardha in Misc. Criminal Bail
Application No.132/2019 is quashed and set aside.
(ii) The order of interim protection to the appellant granted
on 2nd April, 2019 is confirmed subject to same conditions stated in
the said order.
The appeal stands allowed in the above terms.
Criminal Application (APPA) No. 358/2019.
In view of the disposal of the Criminal Appeal, this
application praying for grant of ad-interim anticipatory bail does not
survive. It is disposed accordingly.
JUDGE JUDGE
RGurnule
