Sudeshna Vinayak Gedam vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 13452 Bom

 Judgment                                                      apeal209.21


                                    1



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


                      CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 209/2021.


Ku. Sudeshna Vinayak Gedam,
Aged about 40 years, Occupation
Private, Resident of Plot No.20,
Neeta Cooperative Society,
Indraprast Nagar,
Nagpur - 440022.                            ...         APPELLANT.


                                  VERSUS

1.The State of Maharashtra,
through A.C.P., M.I.D.C.
Nagpur, District Nagpur.

2.State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer,
M.I.D.C., Nagpur.

3.Omprakash @ Munna Nanku Yadav,
Aged 56 years, Occupation -
Resident of NIT Layout, Ajni Square,
Nagpur.                                     ...    RESPONDENTS.


                      ---------------------------------
            Mr. Y.B. Mandpe, Advocate for the Appellant.
      Mr. S.A. Ashirgade, A.P.P. for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
     Mr. S.V. Manohar, Senior Advocate with Shri A.S. Manohar,
                   Advocate for Respondent No.3.
                      ----------------------------------




 ::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2021                 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2021 23:03:59 :::
  Judgment                                                              apeal209.21


                                          2


                                          CORAM : VINAY JOSHI, J.

                                          DATE      : SEPTEMBER 21, 2021.


ORAL JUDGMENT :


              Heard.

              Admit.        By consent the appeal is taken up for final

disposal.

2. This is an appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled

Caste, Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 filed by

the informant, challenging the order dated 19.03.2021 passed in

Misc. Criminal Application No.888/2021 by the Special Judge, in

relation to Crime No.43/2021, for offence punishable under Sections

420, 354, 294, 504, 506 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and

Section 3[2][va] of the Atrocities Act. Consequently, the appellant

is seeking cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to respondent no.3.

3. Precisely, learned Counsel for the appellant has

challenged the impugned order on following grounds - (1) the

respondent No.3 has suppressed the antecedents while claiming pre-

Judgment apeal209.21

arrest bail before the trial Court, (2) the learned Trial Court has not

considered the antecedents of respondent No.3 while deciding his

pre-arrest bail application, and (3) respondent No.3 has misused the

liberty by threatening the informants' mother on 13.03.2021.

4. So far as the first ground is concerned, according to the

learned counsel for the appellant, respondent No.3 ought to have

disclosed the antecedents while claiming bail. He has invited my

attention to the crime chart [page no.184], which shows that in past

14 offences were registered against respondent No.3. He would

submit that the trial Court has not considered the antecedents while

passing the impugned order. According to him, in terms of Section

438[1][ii] of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the trial Court is

obliged to consider the antecedents, while deciding bail application.

5. It emerges from the record that though in the bail

application, respondent No.3 has not referred his antecedents,

however, those were brought on record by the informant, as well by

the State to the notice of the trial Court during the pendency of the

bail application. It reveals from paragraph no.12 of the impugned

order, that the learned trial Court has considered the antecedents

Judgment apeal209.21

while deciding bail application. Besides that I have gone through

the list of antecedents, wherein the prior offences were mostly under

Maharashtra Police Act, and were during the period from 2008 to

2016. On that basis, it cannot be said that the trial Court has erred

in not weighing the antecedents against respondent No.3. Besides

that only on the basis of antecedents, entitlement for bail cannot be

decided. Certainly antecedents can be taken into account while

appreciating the material on record. In view of limited allegations

leveled against the appellant, criminal cases filed prior to 2016

cannot be termed as a decisive factor to weigh against respondent

No.3.

6. The appellant has produced a copy of first information

report lodged by the mother of informant dated 14.03.2021,

registered vide Crime No.43/2021, at Police Station Saonegaon,

District Nagpur. Perusal of said first information report discloses

that mother of the informant has alleged that on 13.03.2021, a

person namely Durgesh entered her house, threatened her and

asked as to where she has kept the documents of one Munna Yadav

[respondent No.3]. Reading of the said first information report

Judgment apeal209.21

itself discloses that the allegations were solely against one Durgesh

Paserkar. Though name of respondent no.3 Munna was allegedly

taken by Durgesh, however, there is no material to indicate that at

the instance of respondent No.3, Durgesh did the act. On perusal of

the existing first information report (Crime No.43/2021), it reveals

that land dispute was in between the informant and co-accused

Pramod Dongre. An agreement of sale was executed in between

them. Apparently, respondent No.3 is no way concerned with the

transaction, therefore, it is difficult to hold that at the instance of

respondent No.3, the incident dated 13.03.2021, had occurred.

Moreover, it requires to be noted that the trial Court, has decided

the bail application vide order dated 19.03.2021, i.e. after lodgment

of concerned first information report dated 14.03.2021. Therefore,

it cannot be said that after obtaining protection, from trial Court

respondent No.3 has misused the liberty. Besides that there is no

material to indicate that during last 6 months, respondent No.3 has

either pressurized the informant or interfered with the process of

investigation.

7. On merits, I have gone through the report lodged by the

informant dated 14.03.2021. It was a land dispute between the

Judgment apeal209.21

informant and co-accused. It was alleged that on 02.01.2021,

respondent No.3 has called the informant at his office, where he

threatened her for settling the land dispute. Thus the allegations

against respondent No.3 are particularly of criminal intimidation.

The learned trial Court upon considering said material has rightly

concluded that the contents of first information report no where

discloses commission of an offence punishable under Section 3[2]

[va] of the Atrocities Act. The trial Court is well justified in pointing

that at initial report there is no reference of informant's caste, which

was later on stated in the supplementary statement after 27 days.

Since there is no prima facie material to constitute an offence

punishable under the Atrocities Act, the statutory bar under Section

18A of the Act would not apply.

8. The appellant has failed to make out a ground to curtail

liberty which was already granted. The impugned order is well

reasoned and justifiable, hence, requires no interference. In view of

above, the appeal being devoid of merits, is dismissed.

JUDGE Rgd.