Nitinkumar Anantrao Adhao And ... vs The State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 13488 Bom

 Judgment                                    1                     24apeal248.21 judgement




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

                               CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 248/2021

      1. Nitinkumar Anatrao Adhao,
         Aged about 34 yrs, Occ. Agriculturist,

      2. Anantrao Ramkrushna Adhao,
         Aged about 60 yrs, Occ. Agriculturist,

          All R/o. Pimpri Adhao, Tq. Nandura,
          Dist. Buldana.

                                                                       .... APPELLANTS

                                       // VERSUS //

      1. State of Maharashtra,
         through Police Station Officer,
         Police Station Nandura,
         Tq. Nandura, Dist. Buldhana.

      2. Sau. Seema Umesh Ranait,
         Aged 29 years, Occ. Household,
         R/o. Pimpri Adhao, Tq. Nandura,
         Dist. Buldana.
                                                    .... RESPONDENTS
 ___________________________________________________________________
 Shri Anil Mardikar, Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri V. R. Deshpande, Advocate for
 appellants.
 Shri M. J. Khan, APP for respondent No. 1.
 Shri Shantaram S. More, Advocate for respondent No. 2.
 ___________________________________________________________________

                                        CORAM : VINAY JOSHI, J.
                                        DATED : 20.09.2020
 JUDGMENT

Heard.

2. Admit. By consent of the learned counsel present for the

Judgment 2 24apeal248.21 judgement

parties, appeal is taken up for final disposal.

3. In anticipation of arrest in Crime No. 306/2021 registered

with the Police Station Nandura, District Buldhana for the offence

punishable under Sections 354, 294, 506 of the Indian Penal Code,

Sections 3(1)(r), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (short 'SC and ST Act'), the

applicants are praying for pre-arrest bail.

4. While claiming protection besides false implication, it is

argued that the contents of First Information Report (FIR) does not

make out a prima facie case under the provisions of SC and ST Act.

The contents of FIR dose not disclose that the occurrence took place

within the "public view". Moreover, according to the applicants, the

major allegations are against co-accused Pawan who is already

released on bail. On the other hand, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor has submitted that the offence is of serious nature. The

informant in her supplementary statement has clarified about her

caste. It is stated that the applicants have abused and threatened to

the victim to humiliate her and therefore, the offence is made out.

  Judgment                               3                  24apeal248.21 judgement




 5.                The informant and applicants are neighbours.                It is

informant's case that on 05.06.2021 in the afternoon co-accused Pawan

was uprooting the plants from the informant's courtyard. Moreover,

co-accused Pawan has outraged her modesty by touching to her person.

She stated that thereafter both applicants who are brother and father,

co-accused Pawan arrived and abused her in filthy language. They also

threatened her for dire consequences. Then the informant stated the

third successive incident alleging about threats given by co-accused

Pawan.

6. It reveals from the report that the allegations about

outraging modesty are against co-accused Pawan. So far as the

applicants are concerned, it is alleged that they abused and threatened

her. The submission that the contents of FIR nowhere, makes out that

the occurrence took place within the "public view" carries substance.

As per the report, the occurrence took place in courtyard. There is no

mention that any member of public was present at the time of

occurrence. This Court in reported case of Pradnya Pradeep Kenkar

Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2005(3) Mh.L.J. 368 has taken a view that in

order to constitute offence punishable under Section 3(1)(r) both

ingredients i.e. occurrence in place accessible to the public and

Judgment 4 24apeal248.21 judgement

presence of independent witnesses are necessary. The informant has

not stated the actual abused given by the applicants. It prima facie

reveals that it was dispute between the neighbours on courtyard. At

this juncture, on prima facie basis, it cannot be inferred that the

applicants have threatened the victim only because she is member of

Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. On the very day, the applicant

No. 1 has also filed report to the Police alleging that the informant also

gave threat and abused them. The question about applicability of the

provisions of SC and ST Act requires serious consideration in trial.

Considering the nature of accusation, no custodial interrogation is

necessary. There is no complaint that the applicants have misused

liberty while on interim protection. Having regard to all these facts,

following order:-

 (I)               Appeal stands allowed and disposed of.


 (II)              The order dated 14.06.2021 passed by the Special Court,

Malkapur in Anticipatory Bail Application (APPLN) No. 120/2021 is

hereby quashed and set aside.

(III) Ad-interim order dated 28.06.2021 is hereby made

absolute upon same terms and conditions.

  Judgment                                 5                   24apeal248.21 judgement




 (IV)              In addition to that, the applicants are directed to attend

concerned Police Station on every Sunday in between 11.00 a.m. to

02.00 p.m. till filing of charge-sheet or for the period of three months

whichever is earlier.

JUDGE

.

Gohane