Bombay High Court
Anil Balu Vitkar vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 12 March, 2021
Bench: S.S. Shinde, Manish Pitale
1/6 Judgment APEAL-1701-19.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1701 OF 2019
Anil Balu Vitkar ]
Residing at Agundewadi, Tal. Phaltan, ]
District : Satara ] .. Appellant
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra ]
Through P.I. Phaltan Gramin ]
Senior Police Station, Dist : Satara ]
]
2. Aaki Sanya Bhosale ]
Residing at Sarde, Tal. Phaltan, ]
District : Satara ]
] .. Respondents
Mr.Hrishikesh Mundargi i/b Mr.Meghdeep Oak
for the Appellant.
Dr.F.R.Shaikh, APP for Respondent No.1/State.
Ms.Gauri Rao, Appointed Advocate by Legal Aid
for Respondent No.2.
CORAM : S.S.SHINDE &
MANISH PITALE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 24th FEBRUARY, 2021
PRONOUNCED ON : 12th MARCH, 2021
JUDGMENT (PER MANISH PITALE, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of
learned counsel appearing for the parties, heard finally.
M.M.Salgaonkar
2/6 Judgment APEAL-1701-19.doc
2. This is an appeal filed under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
("the Atrocities Act") whereby the appellant has challenged the
order dated 6th November, 2019, passed by the Special Judge and
Additional Sessions Judge, Satara, thereby rejecting an application
filed by the appellant for grant of anticipatory bail.
3. The appellant alongwith other accused persons are alleged to
have committed murder of the husband of respondent No.2 (original
informant) on 20th April, 2019. The First Information Report ("FIR")
was registered on 21st April, 2019 against unknown persons for the
offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 364, 504, 506 read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ("the IPC") and Sections
3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) and 6 of the Atrocities Act.
4. According to respondent No.2, some persons assaulted her
and her husband brutally on an allegation that her husband had
stolen their mobile. She alleged that although she did not know the
names of the persons, she knew the community to which they
belonged and that she would be able to identify them. On the basis
of the aforesaid FIR, investigation was initiated and the accused
persons were arrested on various dates while the appellant remained
absconding. The appellant filed an application for grant of
anticipatory bail, but it was rejected. Thereafter, on 22 nd July, 2019,
charge-sheet was filed wherein the appellant was shown as
absconding. The appellant filed second application for grant of
anticipatory bail, which was rejected by the impugned order dated
6th November, 2019.
M.M.Salgaonkar
3/6 Judgment APEAL-1701-19.doc
5. Mr.Mundargi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant,
submitted that the court below had erred in rejecting the application
for anticipatory bail because there was no material brought on
record by the investigating agency to link the appellant with the said
offence. It is further submitted that even the appellant belongs to
scheduled caste community and, therefore, there was no question of
offences under the Atrocities Act being attracted. It was further
submitted that the FIR was registered against unknown persons and
the appellant was falsely roped in because he was a member of
'Tanta Mukti Samiti'. It was emphasized that even respondent No.2
i.e. the original informant had herself admitted that she did not
know the names of the assailants, thereby indicating that there was
every possibility of false implication of the appellant. On this basis,
it was submitted that since there was no material to link the
appellant with the offence, his application for grant of bail ought to
have been allowed.
6. Mr.Shaikh, learned APP appearing on behalf of respondent
No.1/State, vehemently opposed the appeal. It was submitted that
the appellant was an absconding accused and that the FIR was
registered as far back as on 21 st April, 2019. It was submitted that
the charge-sheet and the material brought on record with the same,
indicated the involvement of the appellant.
7. Ms.Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
No.2, also opposed the appeal and submitted that the husband of
respondent No.2 was brutally murdered by the assailants and that
there was sufficient material to link the appellant with the other
accused persons as also the offence in question.
M.M.Salgaonkar
4/6 Judgment APEAL-1701-19.doc
8. We have perused the material on record. In the FIR, it is
stated that unknown persons assaulted the husband of respondent
No.2. The postmortem report shows that the victim had suffered
number of injuries on his body and that the death had occurred due
to trauma of such injuries. The brutality of the assault is evident
from the material on record. Respondent No.2 in her complaint,
leading to registration of the FIR and also in her statement recorded
during investigation, stated that the persons who assaulted her
husband could be identified and that they were responsible for the
death of her husband. She specifically stated that the assailants had
carried out the assault on her husband on the allegation that he had
stolen their mobile.
9. It is an admitted position that the appellant has been
absconding since the registration of the FIR on 21st April, 2019. This
is clear from the charge-sheet. The material on record also shows
that other accused persons were arrested. The test identification
parade was carried out wherein respondent No.2 identified three
accused persons. Hence, we are of the opinion that there is no
substance in the contention raised on behalf of the appellant that
since the FIR was registered against unknown persons and he was
not identified, there was no link between him and the incident in
question. There was no question of the appellant being identified
when he himself has remained absconding since the date of
registration of the FIR.
10. As regards the contention of the appellant that he himself
belongs to the scheduled caste community and, therefore, the
offences under the Atrocities Act could not have been attracted, it is
M.M.Salgaonkar
5/6 Judgment APEAL-1701-19.doc
a matter of trial and such contention could be raised, if at all, as
defence by the appellant.
11. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the court below
also shows that the aspect of number of eye-witnesses having
witnessed the incident, has been appreciated and the court has come
to a conclusion that there is, prima facie, sufficient material against
the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 302 of
the IPC and offences under the Atrocities Act. We are of the opinion
that the appellant cannot claim release on anticipatory bail when he
himself has remained absconding for about two years. It cannot be
said that the material on record indicates false implication of the
appellant. All the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant,
including he allegedly being a member of 'Tanta Mukti Samiti', are
contentions in the nature of raising defence, which cannot be
considered while examining the question as to whether the appellant
is entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.
12. In view of the above, we find that there is no substance in the
present appeal and it deserves to be dismissed.
13. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. However, we make it
clear that the observations made here-in-above are, prima facie, in
nature and confined to the adjudication of present appeal only.
14. We appreciate the sincere efforts taken by Ms.Rao, learned
appointed advocate for respondent No.2 and we quantify her fees at
Rs.7,500/-.
M.M.Salgaonkar
6/6 Judgment APEAL-1701-19.doc
15. The High Court Legal Services Committee, Mumbai is directed
to pay the said amount to the appointed advocate Ms.Rao within
four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
(MANISH PITALE, J.) (S.S.SHINDE, J.)
M.M.Salgaonkar
