Bombay High Court
Khushal S/O Ashok Barai vs The State Of Mah. Thr. Pso ... on 17 November, 2021
Bench: M.S. Sonak, Pushpa V. Ganediwala
1 apel373.21 +2.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.373 OF 2021
Suraj s/o Haribhau Barai,
Aged about 25 years, Occ- Agriculturist,
R/o Narayanpur (Kolse),
Tahasil - Samudrapur, Dist. Wardha.
.....APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through PSO, Samudrapur,
Tah. Samudrapur, Dist. Wardha.
2. Jyoti W/o Shatrughana Sadmake,
Aged 44 yrs, Occ: Agriculture Labour.
R/o Ward No.3, Narayanpur (Kolse),
Tahasil - Samudrapur, Dist. Wardha. ....RESPONDENTS
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.369 OF 2021
Khushal s/o Askhok Barai,
Aged about 28 years, Occ- Lecturer,
R/o Narayanpur Kolse,
Tahasil - Samudrapur, Dist. Wardha.
.....APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through PSO, Samudrapur,
Tah. Samudrapur, Dist. Wardha.
2. Jyoti W/o Shatrughan Sadmake,
Aged 46 yrs, Occ: Agriculture Labour.
R/o Narayanpur (Kolse),
Tahasil - Samudrapur, Dist. Wardha. ....RESPONDENTS
WITH
2 apel373.21 +2.odt
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.371 OF 2021
1. Dadarao s/o Shriram Barai ,
Aged about 65 years, Occ- Agriculturist,
2. Atul s/o Ramesh Barai,
Aged about 27 years, Occ: Agriculturist,
Both R/o Narayanpur (Kolse),
Tahasil - Samudrapur, Dist. Wardha.
.....APPELLANTS
...V E R S U S...
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through PSO, Samudrapur,
Tah. Samudrapur, Dist. Wardha.
2. Jyoti W/o Shatrughana Sadmake,
Aged 44 yrs, Occ: Agiculture Labour.
R/o Ward No.3, Narayanpur (Kolse),
Tahasil - Samudrapur, Dist. Wardha. ....RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri M.V. Rai, Advocate for appellants. (Appeal Nos.373/2021 & 371/2021.)
Shri V.S. Mishra, Advocate for appellant (Appeal No.369/2021)
Shri M.J. Khan, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent no.1 in all appeals.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- M.S. SONAK AND PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, JJ.
DATE :- 17th NOVEMBER, 2021
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : M.S. SONAK, J.)
At the outset, learned counsel for the appellants points out
that private respondent no.2 in each of these appeals have been
duly served in the matter.
2. Heard Shri M.V. Rai and Shri V.S. Mishra, learned
counsel for the appellants, and Shri M.J. Khan, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent no.1-State in all these appeals.
3 apel373.21 +2.odt
3. ADMIT.
4. Learned counsel for the parties agree that all these
appeals can be disposed of by common judgment and order since
they relate same incident and even the impugned order by which
the appellants' application for anticipatory bail came to be rejected
is common.
5. We have perused the record, including the report
based on which the F.I.R. came to be lodged. From the perusal of
the report, we find that prima facie no case has been made out to
invoke the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The allegations concern two
groups of neighbors and the fight that ensued between them.
There are complaints and counter complaints by both groups.
Merely because some of the persons who are assaulted by the
present appellants may have belonged to Scheduled Castes or
Scheduled Tribes category, that by itself, is not sufficient for
applying the provisions of the said Act. There is no allegation that
the alleged assault or the altercation was on account of such
persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes
category or that the appellants even knew that such persons
belonged to the said categories.
4 apel373.21 +2.odt
6. In the impugned order, the learned Additional
Sessions Judge has referred to the seriousness of the offense. No
doubt, that is one of the relevant factors. However, in this case,
the allegations were that the group of about seven persons, which
include the four appellants before us, assaulted and the group of
about ten persons. Injuries were sustained by eight persons. Out
of this, the injuries sustained by one of the persons appear to be,
prima facie, quite serious.
7. In the report, the allegation is that one Haribhau
assaulted this person with an axe resulting in the fracture of his
skull. The injuries sustained by the other persons at least prima
facie cannot be regarded as serious. Even prosecution alleges that
such injuries were caused by the use of sticks by the present
appellants and others.
8. Three of the alleged assailants, including Haribhau,
were arrested. All of these three alleged assailants including
Haribhau have already been enlarged on regular bail. There is a
record that indicates that about 15 sticks were seized at the site
itself. Therefore, the contention of the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor that sticks used by the present appellants are required
5 apel373.21 +2.odt
to be recovered, cannot be a valid ground for denying appellants
anticipatory bail.
9. The record does not indicate that the appellants have
any criminal antecedents. The record, prima facie, indicates that
this is a fight between two neighboring groups, and based on the
incident in question, complaints and counter complaints were
made. Even based on the complaints of the appellants, some
persons belonging to the opposite group also came to be arrested
and the rest were released on anticipatory bail.
10. According to us, all the aforesaid circumstances were
required to be considered by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, and since, the same have not been considered, the
impugned order denying anticipatory bail warrants interference.
Accordingly, we pass the following order:
ORDER
i. The Criminal Appeals are allowed.
ii. In the event of arrest of the Appellants, in connection with
Crime No.257 of 2021 registered with Police Station, Samudrapur,
District Wardha for the offenses punishable under Sections 143,
144, 147, 148, 294, 307, 324, 326, 504, and 506 of the Indian
6 apel373.21 +2.odt
Penal Code and Section 3(2) (v), 3(2) (va) and 3 (1)(r) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocity)
Act, 1989, appellants be released on bail on they furnishing PR
bond Rs.25,000/- with one solvent surety in like amount by each
of them.
iii. The appellants shall attend the Police Station, Samudrapur
District Wardha once a week i.e. on every Sunday between 11:00
a.m. to 02:00 p.m. till filing of the charge-sheet.
iv. The appellants shall not tamper with the prosecution
evidence or shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses.
v. The observations made in this order are prima facie in
nature and made only to decide these appeals, the trial court need
not be influenced by any of the observations made in this order.
vi. The appeals stand disposed of. Pending applications, if any,
are also disposed of.
(Pushpa V. Ganediwala, J.) (M.S. Sonak, J.)
Wagh
Digitally signed by:SURESH
RAOSAHEB WAGH
Signing Date:18.11.2021
11:23
