Purushottam S/O Piritlal Patle vs State Of Mah. Thr. Ps Amgaon Tah. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4476 Bom

                                              1                               9-apeal-125-22.odt



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

                       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 125 OF 2022

Purushottam S/o. Piritlal Patle,
Aged about 50 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o. Poketola, Post/Tah. Amgaon,
Dist. Gondia.                                                              . . . APPELLANT

                       ...V E R S U S..

1. State of Maharashtra through
   P. S. Amgaon,
   Tah. & Dist. Gondia.

2. Umrao S/o. Gyaniram Shahare,
   Aged about 45 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
   R/o. Pokertola, Post Tah. Amgaon,
   Dist. Gondia.                                                     . . . RESPONDENTS

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri R. D. Dharmadhikari, Advocate for appellant.
Mrs. M. A. Barabde, APP for respondent no. 1/State.
Shri R. D. Wakode, Advocate for respondent no. 2.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CORAM :- V. M. DESHPANDE AND
                          AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.

DATED :- 27.04.2022

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : V. M. DESHPANDE, J.) :-

1. Heard.

2. Admit. The matter is taken up for final hearing by consent

of the parties.

2 9-apeal-125-22.odt

3. Heard Shri R. D. Dharmadhikari, learned Advocate for the

appellant, Mrs. M. A. Barabde, learned APP for State and Shri R. D.

Wakode, learned Advocate for respondent no. 2 in extenso. Also

perused reply filed by the respondent no. 1/State and the respondent

no. 2. The reason for approaching this Court by the appellant under

Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention

of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is rejection of his application (Exh.04) under

Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure vide order dated

22.12.2021 by learned District Judge-2 & ASJ, Gondia.

4. From the prosecution's story, it is crystal clear that the

appellant and the respondent no. 2 were friend. Infact the case of the

respondent no. 2 is that the appellant has called him for a party and

they both consume liquor and according to the complainant, during

drinking session, the appellant used castiest remarks and thereafter

gave blow of knife on him.

5. The appellant was immediately arrested. The

Investigating Agency has already completed the entire investigation

and challan is also presented before the competent Court. Learned

APP did state that the respondent no. 2/injured was indoor patient for

3 days. He was admitted to the hospital on 15.10.2021 and discharged

from the hospital on 17.10.2021. From 17.10.2021 till today there are 3 9-apeal-125-22.odt

no complication in the health of the respondent no. 2 and therefore, it

is clear that the offence which was registered against the appellant

under Sections 307, 324, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code is not

going to be converted to more graver one. Admittedly, there is no

criminal antecedent against the the appellant.

6. As the investigation is already over, in our view,

continuance of custodial presence of the appellant is not at all

necessary. Resultantly, we pass the following order:-

i)       The appeal is allowed.

ii)      The order below Exh.04 in Sessions Trial No. 155/2021, dated

22.12.2021 passed by learned District Judge-2 & ASJ, Gondia is hereby

quashed and set aside.

iii) The appellant- Purushottam S/o. Piritlal Patle be released on bail

on he executing a P.R. bond of ₹ 5000/- (Rs. Five Thousand) with one 5000/- (Rs. Five Thousand) with one

solvent surety in the like amount in connection with Crime No.

369/2021 for the offence under Sections 307, 324, 504 and 506 of the

Indian Penal Code with Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v)(a) of the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

1989.

iv) The appellant is directed to attend each and every date of

Trial. Two consecutive absent from Trial will entail the opportunity to 4 9-apeal-125-22.odt

the prosecution and also to the complainant to file appropriate

application before the Court for cancellation of the bail.

v) The appellant is also directed to not to tamper with the

prosecution witnesses and he shall not extend any type of threat to the

respondent no. 2 or the prosecution's witnesses.

(AMIT B. BORKAR, J.) (V. M. DESHPANDE, J.)

RR Jaiswal

Digitally signed by JAISWAL JAISWAL RAJNESH RAMESH RAJNESH Date:

RAMESH    2022.04.28
          16:20:48
          +0530