Bombay High Court
Santosh S/O Purushottam Purohit vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps ... on 8 January, 2021
Bench: V. G. Joshi
Judgment 1 910 apeal 484.2020.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 484 OF 2020
Santosh s/o Purushottam Purohit
Aged about 52 years, Occ. Business,
R/o Near School No. 3, Shivaji Wesh, \
Khamgaon, Tq. Khamgaon, Distt. Buldhanan.
.... APPELLANT/
APPLICANT
// VERSUS //
1. State of Maharashtra, through Police
Station Officer, Shivaji Nagar, Khamgaon,
Tq. Khamgaon, Distt. Buldhana.
2. Sau. Lata Nandkishor Tak,
Aged about 42 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o Mahakal Chowk, Khamgaon,
Tq. Khamgaon, Distt. Buldhana.
.... RESPONDENTS
___________________________________________________________________
Shri S.A. Mohta, Advocate for appellant/applicant.
Ms. H.N. Jaipurkar, A.P.P. for respondent no. 1-State.
Respondent no. 2 is served.
___________________________________________________________________
CORAM : VINAY JOSHI, J.
DATED : 08/01/2021.
JUDGMENT :
Heard.
2. ADMIT. By consent of the learned Counsel appearing for
the parties, Appeal is taken up for final disposal.
3. The appellant is seeking to challenge the order of rejection
of pre-arrest bail passed in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 416 of
Judgment 2 910 apeal 484.2020.odt
2020 Crime was registered against the appellant for the offences
punishable under Section 354, 354-A, 354-D of the Indian Penal Code
and Section 3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(1)(w)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "the SC
and ST Act"). It was alleged that on 21.10.2020 around 7.00 PM,
appellant/accused went to the doorstep of informant-lady, caught hold
her hand and tried to embress her. Learned Counsel for the applicant
vehemently submitted that no such incident occurred but as a counter
blast to earlier police report filed by brother of the appellant, against
the husband of informant lady, false complaint has been filed. The State
opposed the application vide affidavit-in-reply dated 24.12.2020.
4. In context to the submission, I have gone through the copy
of earlier F.I.R. dated 21.10.2020 wherein the appellant's brother has
lodged report against the husband of the informant and two others
about assault. On the basis of said report, Police registered Crime vide
C.R. No. 443 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 326,
504, 506 read with 34 of the India Penal Code. In said report, it is
alleged that, the then accused have assaulted appellant at his head. The
appellant has produced documents to substantiate his contention that
he was hospitalized for one week due to head injury. In such a scenario,
there is strong possibility of false implication as well as it
Judgment 3 910 apeal 484.2020.odt
improbabilises the occurrence.
5. By virtue of interim order the appellant was directed to
attend concerned Police Station which he did except one day. Learned
A.P.P. sought clarification from the concerned Police who also agreed
that besides on first given date, the appellant has attended Police
Station. Affidavit-in-reply shows certain antecedents but the offences
being very old it does not have much impact. Having regard to the
nature of accusation, the appellants has made out a case for grant of
pre-arrest bail. In that view of the matter, following order is passed :
(a) The Criminal Application stands allowed.
(b) The impugned order dated 26.11.2020 passed in
Anticipatory Bail Application No. 416 of 2020 is hereby
quashed and set aside.
(c) Interim order dated 11.12.2020 is hereby made absolute
on same terms and conditions except the condition of
attendance.
6. The Criminal Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
JUDGE
Trupti
