Bombay High Court
Shubham S/O. Keshav Jadhav vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 6 July, 2021
Bench: R. G. Avachat
Cri.Appeal.268-2021.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.268 OF 2021
1. Navnath s/o. Rangnath Malode
2. Gajanan @ Yogesh Asaram Fulare ..Appellants
Vs.
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. Sanjay s/o. Bhagaji Jadhav ..Respondents
----
Mr.A.K.Bhosle, Advocate for appellants
Mr.K.B.Jadhavar, APP for respondent no.1
Mr.V.I.Thole, Advocate for respondent no.2
----
CORAM : R.G. AVACHAT, J.
RESERVED ON : JUNE 29, 2021
PRONOUNCED ON : JULY 06, 2021
ORDER :-
This is an appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 ("the Act", for short).
2. The appellants claim to have apprehension of arrest in
Crime No.0146 of 2021 registered with Khultabad Police Station,
Aurangabad, for the offences punishable under Section 323, 341,
2 Cri.Appeal.268-2021
504 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and
under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the Act. They, therefore,
had preferred an application under Section 438 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge/Special
Judge for trial of the offences under the Act, Aurangabad, vide
order dated 18.05.2021, rejected the application moved by the
appellants for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, present
appeal.
3. Heard.
4. Mr.A.K.Bhosle, learned counsel for the appellants,
would submit that false allegations have been levelled against
the appellants. Grampanchayat elections took place in the
village in the recent past. The panel of the appellants came in
power. Since the elections, relations between the informant
and some others in the village have been unfriendly and there
are counter cases as well. Learned counsel, therefore, urged
for grant of pre-arrest bail by allowing the appeal.
3 Cri.Appeal.268-2021
5. Learned APP for respondent no.1 and Mr.V.I.Thole,
learned counsel for respondent no.2 - informant, would, on the
other hand, oppose the appeal. According to learned counsel
for respondent no.2, Section 18 of the Act bars grant of pre-
arrest bail. Learned counsel read out the allegations in the
F.I.R. to ultimately submit that prima facie the offence
punishable under the Act, has been made out. He, therefore,
urged for dismissal of the appeal.
6. The F.I.R. has been lodged by the Police Patil of the
village. It is his case that he belongs to Scheduled Caste. On
29.04.2021 by 03.30 p.m., the Circle Officer, Khultabad, had
asked him to come to Girjadevi temple, Mhaismal, since
panchnama of encroached portion was to be drawn. He had,
therefore, been to the site. The Circle Officer and the village
Talathi were also present. Both the appellants came there and
asked the Circle Officer not to draw any panchnama. They
picked up quarrel with the informant. The Circle Officer and
4 Cri.Appeal.268-2021
the village Talathi, therefore, went away. The informant also
started for his residence. One Satish Meher, Dinesh Bharti and
Guljar Behre had accompanied the informant on his way home.
7. It was about 04.30 p.m., they were passing by the
house of one Sachin Giri. Both the appellants suddenly
appeared from the house of Sachin Giri and blocked the way of
the informant and others. Both of them abused the informant
over his caste. He (informant) reasoned with them. The
informant then went home and informed his wife and sons.
The informant's wife and two sons, therefore, went towards the
house of Sachin Giri and inquired with the appellants, as to why
did they so behave and abused the informant. It was about
05.00 p.m. Both the appellants abused the wife and sons of
the informant over their caste and manhandled them as well.
The F.I.R., therefore, came to be lodged.
8. True, the allegations in the F.I.R. may, prima facie,
make out an offence under the Act. There is, however, every
possibility of the allegations being false or untrue. In the case
5 Cri.Appeal.268-2021
of Prithvi Raj Chauhan Vs. Union of India and ors., (2020)4
SCC 727, the Apex Court, in paragraph 2, observed thus :-
2. It is submitted that Section 18-A has
been enacted to nullify the judgment of this
Court in Subhash Kashinath Mahajan Vs.
State of Maharashtra, (2018)6 SCC 454, in
which the following directions were issued:
(SCC p. 51379) ....
79. ....
79.1. ....
79.2. There is no absolute bar
against grant of anticipatory bail in
cases under the Atrocities Act if no
prima facie case is made out or where
on judicial scrutiny the complaint is
found to be prima facie mala fide.
......"
9. Admittedly, there has been Grampanchayat elections
a few months before the incident. The informant appears to
have belonged to the rival group. There appears to be a
counter case i.e. C.R. No.147 of 2021 registered within half an
hour of registration of the crime in question. Crime No.147 of
2021 has been registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 143, 148, 324, 327, 323, 504, 269, 270 read with
Section 149 of Indian Penal Code; Section 135 of Bombay
6 Cri.Appeal.268-2021
Police Act, 1951 and Section 51(b) of Disaster Management
Act, 2005. Sagar and Aniket, sons of the informant, have been
accused along with others in that crime. There is one more
Crime, being C.R. No.148 of 2021, registered against four
others. Said crime is also alleged to have taken place within
hours of the crime in question. As such, all was not well
between the appellants on one hand and the informant and
others, on the other. It is said that when war breaks out, truth
is first casualty.
10. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that both the appellants
abused the informant over his caste at 04.30 p.m. and after
half an hour, abused the informant's wife and sons with the
very words. Both the appellants have been attributed with the
said abusive words. Although it is not impossible, it may be
difficult for more than one person to abuse another in one voice
at the same time. Be that as it may.
11. The facts and circumstances of the case,
undoubtedly, indicate that all was not well between the
7 Cri.Appeal.268-2021
appellants on one hand and the informant and his family
members, on the other. Possibility of making false allegations
against the appellants may not be ruled. Offences under
Indian Penal Code are bailable one.
12. In the result, I am inclined to allow the appeal.
Hence, the following order:-
(i) The appeal is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 18.05.2021 passed by
learned I/c. Addl. Sessions Judge and Special Judge, S.C. and
S.T. (P.O.A.) Act, Aurangabad, in Bail Application No.772 of
2021, is set aside.
(iii) In the event of arrest, the appellants be released on
executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen
Thousand) each with one surety each in the like amount, in
connection with Crime No.0146 of 2021 registered with
Khultabad Police Station, Dist.Aurangabad, for the offences
punishable under Sections 323, 341, 504 and 506 read with
8 Cri.Appeal.268-2021
Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(1)(r),
3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
(iv) The appellants shall not tamper with the prosecution
evidence;
(v) They shall attend the police station as when required
by the Investigating Officer.
[R.G. AVACHAT, J.]
KBP
