Mangalabai W/O Digambar Gawande vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Digras ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 7109 Bom

 Judgment                                   1                                apeal121.21.odt



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


                               CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 121/2021


          Mangalabai W/o Digambar Gawande,
          Age about 65 years, Occ. Labour
          R/o. Tuptakli, Tq. Digras,
          Dist. Yavatmal                                                .... APPELLANT

                                       // VERSUS //

 1]       State of Maharashtra,
          Through Police Station Officer,
          Police Station Digras,
          Tq. Digras Dist. Yavatmal

 2]       Pooja Laxman Deokar,
          Aged about 24 years, Occ. Nil,
          R/o. Tuptakli, Tq. Digras,
          Dist. Yavatmal                                          .... RESPONDENT(S)

  *******************************************************************
                 Shri A.V. Band, Advocate for the appellant
              Ms. Shamsi Haider, APP for the respondent no. 1
  *******************************************************************

                           CORAM : Z.A.HAQ & AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.

MAY 04, 2021

JUDGMENT : (PER:- AMIT B. BORKAR, J.)

1] Heard.

 2]               ADMIT.



 3]               This is an appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes

and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "the

Act of 1989") challenging the order dated 16/01/2021 passed by the

Additional Sessions Judge, Darwha in relation to Crime No. 989/2020

Judgment 2 apeal121.21.odt

registered with the respondent no. 1 - Police Station for the offences

punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 323, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal

Code and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(w) of the Act of 1989.

4] The first information report came to be registered against the

appellant with the accusations that son of the appellant committed forcible

sexual intercourse with the respondent no. 2 from 2015 till 2020. It is stated

that when son of the appellant refused to marry with the respondent no. 2,

she reached the house of the appellant, at that time the appellant abused the

respondent no. 2 in the name of her caste and insulted her.

5] The appellant therefore filed an application under Section 438

of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking pre-arrest bail. The said

application came to be rejected by the impugned order dated 16/01/2021.

6] The appellant has therefore filed the present appeal. This Court

on 09/03/2021 issued notices to the respondents and by way of interim relief

protected the appellant subject to the conditions stated in the said order. The

respondent no. 1 - Investigating Agency has filed reply stating that the

respondent no. 2 belongs to Scheduled Caste. It is stated that son of the

appellant committed forcible sexual intercourse with the respondent no. 2 on

the promise of marriage. It is stated that subsequently when son of the

appellant refused to marry with the respondent no. 2, the respondent no. 2

went to the house of the appellant, but the appellant abused the respondent

no. 2 in the name of her caste and insulted her.

  Judgment                                 3                              apeal121.21.odt



 7]               The respondent no. 2 is served with the notice of this appeal,

but she has neither appeared personally or through Advocate.

8] We have carefully considered the allegations in the first

information report. On careful consideration of the first information report, it

appears that the allegations against the appellant in relation to the offences

under the provisions of the Act of 1989 are vague in nature. The allegations

against the appellant prima facie does not fulfill the ingredients of the

offences alleged against her under the provisions of the Act of 1989. There

are no details given by the respondent no. 2 in her report as regards the

abuses uttered by the appellant. The appellant is 65 years old lady. The

respondents have not been able to point out that the appellant has misused

the liberty granted to her. In the context of refusal by son of the appellant to

perform marriage with the respondent no. 2, we are satisfied that the order

granting provisional bail to the appellant deserves to be confirmed. Since the

allegations in the first information report in relation to the ingredients of the

offences under the provisions of the Act of 1989 prima facie are not fullfilled,

the bar contained under Section 18-A of the Act of 1989 will not be attracted.

 9]               Hence, the following order:-

                  (a)          The order dated 16/01/2021 passed in Criminal

Bail Application No. 215/2020 by the Additional Sessions

Judge, Darwha is quashed and set aside.

  Judgment                                 4                               apeal121.21.odt



                  (b)          The order of this Court dated 09/03/2021 granting

provisional protection to the appellant is hereby confirmed on

the same terms and conditions.

The appeal is allowed in the above terms.

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPA) NO. 181/2021

In view of the disposal of the Criminal Appeal No. 121/2021,

this application praying for grant of bail does not survive. It is disposed

accordingly.

                   (JUDGE)                                  (JUDGE)




 ANSARI