Bombay High Court
Balwant S/O Kashinath Gangawane vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps ... on 8 January, 2021
Bench: Z.A. Haq, Amit B. Borkar
1 crappeal 301.20.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 301 OF 2020
Balwant S/o. Kashinath Gangawane,
Aged 45 years, Occu. Agriculture,
R/o. Pangara Bandi, Tq. Malegaon,
Dist. Washim, P. S. Malegaon. ....APPELLANT
// VERSUS //
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Washim City, Tq. Distt. Washim.
2. Rekha W/o. Siddhartha Ingale,
Aged 32 yrs. Occ. Labourer,
R/o. Kale File, Washim,
Tq. & Dist. Washim .... RESPONDENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Raju Kadu, Advocate h/f Shri S.K. Undal, Advocate for the
appellant.
Ms. Mayuri Deshmukh, APP for the respondent no.1.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : Z. A. HAQ AND
AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
DATED : 08.01.2021
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,
::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2021 04:46:00 :::
2 crappeal 301.20.odt
1989 (for short "the Act of 1989") challenging the order dated
07.07.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim
in Misc. Criminal Application No.179/2020 for offences punishable
under Sections 376, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code and under Sections 3 (1) (r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(1)
(w)(ii) of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "the Act of 1989").
4. The First Information Report came to be registered
against the appellant with the accusation that the appellant hurled
abuses in the name of caste of the respondent no.2 and threatened to
kill her. The appellant, therefore, moved the learned Sessions Judge
with Criminal Application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, which was rejected by the impugned order. The appellant
has, therefore, filed the present appeal before this Court. On
24.07.2020, this Court protected the appellant.
5. The respondent no.2 though served with notice of the
present appeal, has not appeared either personally or through
Advocate before this Court.
::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2021 04:46:00 :::
3 crappeal 301.20.odt
6. We have carefully considered the contents of the First
Information Report. The main allegation as regards sexual
exploitation is against the brother of the appellant.
7. The Advocate for the appellant has invited our attention
to the order of this Court in Criminal Appeal No.402 of 2020 ( Jayant
K. Gangawane Vs. State and anr. ), by which the brother of the
appellant named in the same F.I.R. has been released on bail by this
Court.
8. We have considered the allegations made against the
appellant. After carefully considering the allegations against the
appellant, we find that prima facie the allegations are vague in nature
and do not constitute the offence under the provisions of the Act of
1989.
9. The appellant has stated that there is no crime registered
against him. The prosecution has not pointed not custodial
interrogation of the appellant is necessary. The prosecution has not
pointed out that the appellant has misused the liberty granted to him
by order dated 24.07.2020. We, therefore, pass the following
order:
::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2021 04:46:00 :::
4 crappeal 301.20.odt
ORDER
(i) Criminal Appeal is allowed;
(ii) The impugned order dated 07.07.2020 passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Washim in Misc. Criminal Application
No.179/2020 is quashed and set aside; and
(iii) The order of grant of provisional bail to the
appellant passed by this Court on 24.07.2020 is hereby
confirmed, on the same conditions stated in the said order.
Criminal Appeal is disposed in the above terms.
JUDGE JUDGE
Ambulkar
