Bombay High Court
Hanumant Mukunda Udmale And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 13 July, 2021
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
{1}
908 sr.no..odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
908 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.208 OF 2021
HANUMANT MUKUNDA UDMALE AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
...
Advocate for Appellants : Mr. Vinod B Jadhav
APP for Respondents: Mr. R.B. Bagul
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL, J.
DATE : 13.07.2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1] Heard. Admit. With the consent of both sides, matter is
heard finally at the stage of admission.
2] This is an appeal under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities Act) 1989
(hereinafter referred to as `the Atrocities Act' ) being aggrieved and
dissatisfied by the order passed by the Special Court, refusing
anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in connection with Crime
No. 16 of 2021, for the offence punishable under Sections 37, 452, 324,
323, 143, 147, 148, 149, 504, 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s)
of the Atrocities Act, registered with Ambejogai Rural Police Station.
{2}
908 sr.no..odt
3] After having heard both the sides, it transpires that there is a
dispute between the appellant No.1 and the informant, who happen to be
the step-brothers inter-se, on account of property. It is alleged that the
applicants alongwith co-accused initially assaulted him on 22 October
2020 but the matter was amicably settled due to intervention of some
villagers. It is alleged that again on 16 December 2020 the appellants
alongwith other accused formed an unlawful assembly, committed
criminal trespass by entering into the shop of the informant, armed with
weapons and assaulted him. It is alleged that the other two accused in
the process of incident hurled abuses on caste lines. The FIR was lodged
on 25.1.2021 and the offence was registered.
4] A careful perusal of the papers of investigation would reveal
that the allegations as regard offence punishable under the Atrocities Act
are against the other two accused who have been arrested and released
on regular bail. Obviously, since the appellants also belong to the same
caste, they cannot be charged for the offence punishable under the
Atrocities Act. For that matter, even there are no such allegations qua
them.
5] Though there are couple of independent eye-witnesses, both
of whom have narrated the incident dated 22 October 2020 and 16
December 2020, their version is vague and omnibus. They have named
the appellants and the other accused collectively stating that they entered
into the shop of the informant and assaulted him. They are equally
vague in attributing the appellants with omnibus allegations of carrying
sticks, stones and iron rod.
6] Conspicuously, the witnesses do not specifically attribute any
{3}
908 sr.no..odt
of the appellants with specific assault or injury. For that matter, there is
not a single injury certificate in the papers of investigation for whatever
reason.
7] Coupled with the above state of affairs, it is important to
note that the appellants have been protected by way of ad-interim
anticipatory bail by this court vide order dated 27.4.2021 by putting
them to certain conditions. There are no allegations about they having
committed breach of the conditions. In the circumstances, the appeal
deserves to be allowed.
8] The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated
20.02.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai is
quashed and set aside. The ad-interim anticipatory bail being granted
by order dated 27.4.2021 stands confirmed with the same terms and
conditions with a modification that the condition as regards attendance
would cease on filing of a final report by the I.O.
[MANGESH S. PATIL]
JUDGE.
grt/-
