Chandrakala Wd/O Raju Nandane And ... vs State Of Mah., Thr. P.S.O. ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 439 Bom

 Judgment                                  1                       906 apeal 65.2020.odt




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                            NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.


                         CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 65 OF 2020

           1. Chandrakala wd/o Raju Nandane
              Aged about 55 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
              R/o Bishnur, q. Ashti, Distt. Wardha.

           2. Jayashri w/o Yogesh Pachare
              aged about 26 years, Occ. Household,
              R/o Chicholi, Tq. Kalamb, Distt. Yavatmal.
                                                                  .... APPELLANTS

                                   // VERSUS //

           1. State of Maharashtra, through Police
              Station Officer, Talegaon (Shamjipant),
              Tq. Ashti, Distt. Wardha.

           2. Aachal d/o Sunil Gadge
              (Aachal w/o Amol Nandane)
              Aged 21 years, Occ. Household,
              R/o Bishnur, Tq. Ashti,
              Distt. Wardha.
                                                                .... RESPONDENTS

 ___________________________________________________________________
 Shri M.V. Rai, Advocate for appellants.
 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.

Judgment 2 906 apeal 65.2020.odt

2. ADMIT. By consent of the learned Counsel appearing for

the parties, Appeal is taken up for final disposal.

3. The appellants have challenged the order of rejection of

pre-arrest bail by invoking the provisions of appeal under Section 14-A

of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "the SC and ST Act"). Appellant no. 1 is

the mother-in-law whilst appellant no. 2 is sister-in-law of the

informant-lady. The son of appellant no. 1 namely Amol (co-accuse) got

married with the informant-lady one year proceeding to the

occurrence. The informant alleged that after one year from her

marriage she begotten a son and thereafter, she was subjected to

matrimonial harassment. She stated that on 28.10.2019, appellant no.

1 has abused her in the name of caste. Thereafter, co-accused Amol

gave her pill to cause abortion and finally on one day, with the

assistance of both appellants some other pills were forcibly

administered to cause abortion. When the appellant returned to her

maternal house, after 15 days she lodged the report about the

occurrence.

4. It reveals that the main allegations are against the

co-accused Amol who was already arrested. The State has resisted the

Judgment 3 906 apeal 65.2020.odt

bail vide affidavit-in-reply. The alleged utterance does not clearly

convey whether it amounts to intentional abuse in the name of caste.

The domestic dispute has reached to Police Station when the informant

went to her maternal house. This Court has granted interim protection

to both the appellants near-about prior to one year, which is prevailing

till date. The State in it's reply has stated that already investigation is

complete and charge-sheet has been filed. No fruitful purpose would be

served by arresting the appellant. The question about the applicability

of the provisions of the SC and ST Act requires consideration. Both the

appellants are female and already enjoyed interim protection. No

complaint is made that they had mis-used the liberty.

5. In the circumstances, the appellants have made out a case

for grant of pre-arrest protection. Therefore following order is passed :

              (a)     The Criminal Appeal stands allowed.

              (b)     The impugned order dated 28.11.2019 is hereby
                      quashed and set aside.

              (c)     Interim order dated 07.02.2020 is hereby made
                      absolute on same terms and conditions.

6. The Criminal Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

JUDGE Trupti