Bombay High Court
Baba S/O Deogir Giri And 2 Others vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ... on 5 October, 2021
Bench: V.M. Deshpande, Amit B. Borkar
Judgment
apeal361.21 16
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.361 OF 2021
1. Baba s/o Deogir Giri, aged about 79
years, occupation agriculturist.
2. Ashok s/o Deogir Giri, aged about 64
years, occupation agriculturist.
Both r/o Veni, post Pohna,
Taluka Hinganghat, district Wardha.
3. Punit @ Tushar Giri, aged about 32
years, occupation service, r/o Tukum, Ward
No.1, Chandrapur, district Chandrapur. ..... Appellants.
:: V E R S U S ::
1. The State of Maharashtra, through
Police Station Officer, Police
Station Wadner, district Wardha.
2. Nitin s/o Haridas Thamke, aged
about 35 years, occupation service, r/o
Wani, taluka Hinganghat, district Wardha. ..... Respondents.
===================================
Shri Sumait Kadam, Counsel for Appellants.
Shri A.V.Lokhande, Counsel for Respondent No.2.
Shri V.A.Thakare, Addl.P.P. for the State.
===================================
CORAM : V.M.DESHPANDE & AMIT B.BORKAR, JJ.
DATE : OCTOBER 05, 2021
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : V.M.Deshpande, J.)
.....2/-
::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2021 03:30:34 :::
Judgment
apeal361.21 16
2
1. This is an appeal under Section 14A of the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989, being aggrieved by order dated 23.8.2021 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Hinganghat whereby learned Judge
rejected an application filed on behalf of appellants under Section
439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail.
2. Heard learned counsel Shri Sumait Kadam for
appellants, learned counsel Shri A.V.Lokhande for respondent
No.2, and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri V.A.Thakare
for respondent No.1/State. Admit. Heard finally by consent of
learned counsel for parties. Also, perused respective pleadings
filed on record.
3. In view of report lodged by respondent No.2 with
Wadner Police Station, district Wardha, a crime was registered
against appellants and others for offences punishable under
Sections 294, 324, 143, 149, and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and
under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Atrocities Act.
4. After registration of the crime, appellants were
.....3/-
::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2021 03:30:34 :::
Judgment
apeal361.21 16
3
arrested on 17.8.2021. After their arrest, they moved an
application for grant of bail before learned Additional Sessions
which stands rejected.
5. From the First Information Report itself, it is clear that
the complainant as well as family of appellant No.1 Baba were
cultivating land adjacent to each other which was given to both of
them by the State of Maharashtra. From the First Information
Report, it is clear that there used to be dispute in respect of
boundary. During course of hearing, learned counsel Shri
A.V.Lokhande for respondent No.2 submitted that due to boundary
dispute respondent No.2 was required to filed a suit for injunction
in the Court of learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Hinganghat.
The said suit is registered as RCS No.81/1991 and in that he
moved an application under Order 39 Rules (1) and (2) for grant
of injunction. However, as per his submission, the application was
rejected by learned Civil Judge Junior Division on 3.9.1991. Felt
aggrieved, respondent No.2 carried an appeal in the Court learned
District Judge and the appeal was registered as Misc.Civil Appeal
No.10/2019 and learned Appellate Court delivered judgment on
.....4/-
::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2021 03:30:34 :::
Judgment
apeal361.21 16
4
29.7.2020 allowing the appeal and thereby granted injunction in
favour of appellants therein. Respondent No.2 has placed copy of
the order rejecting injunction application as well as copy of
judgment of the Appellate Court.
6. According to learned counsel for respondent No.2, in
spite of injunction granted in their favour restraining appellants
herein and others they continued their activities of encroachment.
However, when a query was made to learned counsel for
respondent No.2 as to whether any steps are taken by respondent
No.2 at proceeding for breach of injunction, upon that learned
counsel submitted that no such steps are taken.
7. Be that as it may, it appears that alleged incident has
occurred in view of civil dispute pending between parties. The suit
is still pending. The title or factum of possession is yet to be finally
decided.
8. In this view of the matter, in our view, the case of
appellants is squarely covered by law laid down by the Honourable
Apex Court in the case of Hitesh Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand
.....5/-
::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2021 03:30:34 :::
Judgment
apeal361.21 16
5
and anr reported at (2020)10 SCC 710. Further, investigation qua
present appellants is already over as it could be seen from
investigation papers tendered before us by learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State.
9. In view of the aforesaid, we pass following order:
ORDER
(1) The criminal appeal is allowed.
(2) The order dated 23.8.2021 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Hinganghat rejecting the application filed on
behalf of appellants for grant of bail is hereby quashed and set
aside.
(3) Appellants be released on bail in connection with Crime
No.205/2021 registered with Wadner Police Station, district
Wardha on they executing a P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.500/- by
each of them with one solvent surety of the like amount.
(4) Appellants are directed to attend the police station as and
when they are called by Investigating Officer, till filing of
.....6/-
Judgment
apeal361.21 16
chargesheet. However, for that Investigating Officer shall give a
clear cut 48 hour written communication to appellants.
The criminal appeal is allowed and disposed of
accordingly.
JUDGE JUDGE
!! BRW !!
...../-
