Shobelal S/O Muktilal Mohare vs State Of Mah., Thr. P.S.O. Ps ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 45 Bom

   Judgment                                                        apeal52.20
                                       1



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


                       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 52 OF 2020.


  Shobelal s/o Muktilal Mohare,
  Aged about 63 years,
  Occupation - Agriculturist,
  resident of Pangaon, Tahsil
  Salekasa, District Gondia.                   ... APPELLANT.


                                    VERSUS


  1.The State of Maharashtra,
  through Police Station Officer,
  P.S. Salekasa, Tahsil Salekasa,
  District Gondia.

  2.Manjubai Manoj Raut,
  Aged 35 years, Occupation Sarpanch,
  resident of Pangaon, Tahsil Salekasa,
  District Bhandara.                           ... RESPONDENTS.




                                 -----------
              Shri D.V. Mahajan, Advocate for the Appellant.
              Shri S.D. Sirpurkar, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1.
       Shri S.U. Bhoyar, Advocate (Appointed) for Respondent No.2.
                                 -----------



                               CORAM : VINAY JOSHI, J.

DATE : JANUARY 04, 2021

Judgment apeal52.20

ORAL JUDGMENT :

Heard.

Admit. By consent of learned Counsel appearing for the

respective parties, the appeal is taken up for final hearing.

2. The appellant/accused is challenging the order of

rejection of pre arrest bail passed by the Sessions Court in M.C.B.A.

No. 324/2019. An offence has been registered against the appellant

vide Crime No. 304/2019 for the offence punishable under Sections

323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections

3[1][r], 3[1][v] of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

3. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that in

pursuance of the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition

No.4158/2018, Gram Sabha was conveyed. According to him, no

such incident had occurred since nothing was reflected in the

resolution passed by the Gram Sabha on that date. He has tendered

photo copy of the resolution for perusal. The same is taken on

record.

Judgment apeal52.20

4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondents

would submit that the allegations are serious and due to bar under

Section 18 of the Atrocities Act, the appellant is not entitled for pre

arrest bail.

5. With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties,

first information report has been perused. The informant Sarpanch

has alleged that at the time of Gram Sabha in all 4 accused have

abused her by referring name of her case and also manhandled her.

The allegations appears to be general in nature. It reveals that by

virtue of orders dated 16.09.2019 of this Court, Gram Sabha was

conveyed. There is possibility that the respondent may have grudge

since the appellant after removal had approached to this Court. The

bar under Section 18 of the Atrocities Act would not apply if prima

facie case has not been made out.

6. This Court has exercised jurisdiction and granted pre

arrest protection way back in the month of February, 2020 which is

prevailing till date. There is no complaint that the appellant has

misused the liberty, hence no purpose would be served in reverting

the position by curtailing the liberty once granted. In view of this,

the Appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 31.12.2019

Judgment apeal52.20

passed by the District Judge-1 and Sessions Judge, Gondia in Misc.

Criminal Application No. 324/2019 is hereby quashed and set aside.

The interim order passed by this Court on 03.02.2020, is hereby

made absolute on same terms and conditions.

JUDGE

Rgd.