Bombay High Court
Pawan S/O Vasanta Meshram vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ... on 26 October, 2021
Bench: M.S. Sonak, Pushpa V. Ganediwala
apeal 368.21. 1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Criminal Appeal No.368/2021
(Pawan Meshram V State of Maharashtra and another)
*******************************************************************************************************************
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders
or directions and Registrar's orders.
*******************************************************************************************************************
Mr. H.G. Katekar, Advocate for appellant.
Mr. Doifode, APP for State.
CORAM : M.S. SONAK & PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, JJ.
DATE : 26-10-2021.
Heard Mr. Katekar, learned Counsel for the appellant and
Mr. Doifode, learned APP for the State.
2. This is an appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989,
challenging the order dated 18-06-2021, by which the appellant was
declined regular bail by the learned Special Court.
3. Mr. Katekar, learned Counsel points out that from out of
15 accused persons, the accused no.4 was enlarged on bail by this
Court vide its judgment and order dated 28-07-2021 in Criminal
Appeal No.244/2021. Mr. Katekar, learned Counsel further submits
that there is no significant difference between the role ascribed to the
appellant herein and the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.244/2021.
He submits that even otherwise there has been no consideration of
the appellant's case on merits and therefore, his appeal ought to be
allowed.
apeal 368.21. 2/3
4. Mr. Doifode, learned APP points out that if the appellant
seeks bail on the ground of alleged parity, then, the appellant, ought
to be relegated to the learned Special Court for consideration of this
aspect. He points out the impugned order in this case dated
18-06-2021 and the order of this Court on which the appellant relies
was made on 28-07-2021.
5. Having considered the rival contentions and perused the
record, we agree with Mr. Doifode, learned APP that if the appellant
seeks bail on the ground of parity, then, it will be appropriate that
the appellant, at the first instance, applies for bail before the learned
Special Court.
6. Therefore, rather than entertain this appeal and address
the issue of parity, we grant liberty to the appellant to file application
for bail before the learned Special Court, inter alia on the ground of
change in circumstances. This change arises on account of one of the
co-accused being enlarged on bail by this Court and the contention of
the learned Counsel for the appellant that there is no difference in the
role ascribed to the present appellant and the appellant in Criminal
Appeal No.244/2021. This contention of the appellant has to be
examined by the learned Special Court and according to us, the
learned Special Court at least in the first instance, will be better
poised to go into this aspect and examine this contention.
apeal 368.21. 3/3
7. Accordingly, we dispose of this appeal by granting the
appellant liberty in the aforesaid terms.
8. At the request of learned Counsel for the appellant, we
direct the learned Special Court that the bail application of the
appellant be disposed of as expeditiously as possible and in any case
within the period of four weeks from the date on which the copy of
the said application is served upon the learned Public Prosecutor
appearing before the learned Special Court.
9. All contentions of all parties are, however, left open for
determination by the learned Special Court.
10. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No
order as to costs.
(Pushpa V. Ganediwala, J.) (M.S. Sonak, J.)
Deshmukh
