Bombay High Court
Sunil S/O Gulabrao Thakare vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps ... on 9 January, 2021
Bench: Z.A. Haq, Amit B. Borkar
1 cr-apl-295-20j.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 295 OF 2020
Sunil S/o. Gulabrao Thakare,
Aged 50 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o. Mahuli (Jahagir),
Tah. & Dist. Amravati. . . . APPELLANT
...V E R S U S..
1. State of Maharashtra through
Police Station Officer,
Police Station Mahuli,
Dist. Amravati.
2. Mandabai Ajabrao Tayde,
Aged 60 years, Occ. Household,
R/o. Bramhanwada (Govindpur),
Tah. & Dist. Amravati. . . RESPONDENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri P. R. Agrawal, Advocate for appellant.
Shri T. A. Mirza, A.P.P. for respondent no. 1/State.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM :- Z. A. HAQ AND
AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
DATED :- 09.01.2021
JUDGMENT (PER : AMIT B. BORKAR, J.) :-
1. Heard.
2. Admit.
3. This appeal under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and
the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short "the
2 cr-apl-295-20j.odt
Act of 1989") challenging order dated 19.08.2020 passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in Misc. Cri. Application No.
883/2020 in relation to Crime No. 124/2020 under Sections 302, 201
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of
the Act of 1989 came to be registered with the respondent no. 1-Police
Station.
4. The First Information Report (FIR) came to be registered
against the appellant with accusation that the appellant and two other
persons have committed murder of son of the informant-Rajkumar and
they destroyed his corpse.
5. The appellant therefore filed Misc. Cri. Application No.
883/2020 with the Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati, which was
rejected by the impugned order. The appellant has therefore filed the
present appeal in this Court. This Court on 28.08.2020 issued notice
to the respondent no. 2 and directed release of the appellant on
provisional bail, subject to condition stated in the said order. Though,
the respondent no. 2 is served with the notice, she has neither
appeared in person nor through Advocate.
6. We have carefully gone through the contents of the FIR and
other material placed on record by the appellant. It appears that the
3 cr-apl-295-20j.odt
appellant is a cancer patient, who is undergoing chemotherapy. The
appellant has produced the order of the learned Additional Sessions
Judge granting bail to co-accused- Ganesh. The appellant has stated
that there is no other crime registered against the appellant. The
prosecution has not shown as to why custodial interrogation of the
appellant is necessary. The prosecution has also not pointed out that
the appellant has misused liberty granted to him by order dated
28.08.2020.
7. We have carefully considered the averment in the FIR. On
perusal of the accusation in the FIR, prima facie ingredients of offence
under the provisions of the Act of 1989 are not fulfilled. We, therefore,
pass the following order :-
(i) The impugned order dated 19.08.2020 passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in Misc. Cri. Application No.
883/2020 is quashed and set aside.
(ii) The order of granting protection to the appellant dated
28.08.2020 is confirmed on the same condition subject to modification
of condition no. 1.
(iii) The appellant shall remain present with the respondent no.
1-Police Station as and when called, till filing of charge-sheet, if any.
4 cr-apl-295-20j.odt
The Criminal Appeal is allowed in the above terms.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPA) No. 334 OF 2020
In view of the disposal of the present appeal, the Criminal
Application praying for dispensing with filing of certified copy of the
order dated 19.08.2020 does not survive. It is disposed accordingly.
JUDGE JUDGE
RR Jaiswal
