Shankar Khima Chavan And Another vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 1427 Bom

                                                                 Cri.Appeal No.585.21.odt


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                         CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.585 OF 2021

1.      Shankar s/o. Khima Chavan
2.      Santosh s/o. Babulal Marmath                    ..Appellants

                Vs.

1.      State of Maharashtra
2.      Meena w/o. Madanrao Bhivsane                    ..Respondents

                              ----
Mr.V.D.Sapkal, Senior Advocate h/f. Mr.S.R.Sapkal, Advocate for
appellants

Ms.Geeta Deshpande, APP for respondent no.1

Mr.R.V.Gore, Advocate for respondent no.2
                                 ----

                                    CORAM : R.G. AVACHAT, J.

DATE : FEBRUARY 08, 2021 ORDER :-

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

Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

(the Act for short).

2. The challenge in this appeal is to the order dated

09.11.2021 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Vaijapur, Dist.

Aurangabad, refusing to grant the appellants herein anticipatory bail in

connection with Crime No.410 of 2021 registered at Police Station,

Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad, for the offences punishable under

Sections 504, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and

Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act.

3. Perused the First Information Report (FIR) and the

related papers.

4. Learned counsel representing the informant, relying on

the Apex Court judgments in the cases of (i) Vilas Pandurang Pawar

and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors., 2012 DGLS (SC) 457 and

(ii) Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs. Union of India and ors., 2020 DGLS (SC)

163 would submit that Section 18 of the Act creates a specific bar in

grant of anticipatory bail. When an offence is registered against a

person under the provisions of the Act, no Court shall entertain the

application for anticipatory bail, unless it, prima facie, finds that

such an offence is not made out. Moreover, while considering the

application for bail, scope for appreciation of evidence and the

material on record, is limited. The Court is not expected to indulge

in critical analysis of the evidence on record. Liberal use of the

power to grant pre-arrest bail would defeat the intention of

Parliament in enacting the Act. According to him, the appellants

have been named in the FIR. The FIR clearly makes out the

offence(s) against them. Learned counsel invited attention of this

Court to Sections 3(2)(vii) of the Act. According to him, both the

appellants are public servants. They have joined hands with the

villagers to harass the informant as alleged in the FIR. According to

him, the informant has, therefore, been subjected to an enquiry. The

enquiry is not yet complete in all respects. According to him, since

the allegations in the FIR, prima facie, make out an offence under the

Act, there is bar under Section 18 of the very Act to grant pre-arrest

bail. He, therefore, urged for dismissal of the appeal.

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants,

would, on the other hand, submit that the FIR has been lodged just

to scuttle the departmental action that may be taken against the

informant. He invited this Court's attention to certain documents to

point out, as to how the informant has misused her position as a

Gramsevak during the relevant time. He, therefore, urged for grant

of the appeal.

6. Considered the submissions advanced by learned

counsel appearing for the parties. Perused the FIR and the

documents relied on.

7. There can be no two views over what has been submitted

by learned counsel for the informant relying on the Apex Court's

judgments, referred to herein above.

8. The FIR has been lodged on 28.10.2021 in relation to the

incident that dates back to over a year.

9. The informant was serving as a Gramsevak with

Grampanchayat, Bendwadi, Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad. Some of

the villagers (named in the FIR) had made a complaint against her to

her superiors. It was alleged in the said complaint that the informant

and the then Village Sarpanch misappropriated funds received for

construction of high-mast and R.O. shed. This complaint was made

way back in 2020. The concerned Block Development Officer had

made enquiry into the complaint, to find the informant and the then

Village Sarpanch to have not utilised the funds for the purpose of

construction of high-mast and R.O. shed. It is also found that the

informant, still, paid the amount to M/s. Chitlangi Gifts and Toys.

As such, the informant was prima facie found to have

misappropriated a sum of little over Rs.Two Lakhs received for

development scheme of the village. It was a specific case of some of

the villagers that the development work for which the grants were

received, had, in fact, not been made. The Dy. Chief Executive

Officer, Zilla Parishad, on receipt of the report of enquiry submitted

by the Block Development Officer, issued notice dated 01.01.2021 to

the informant, calling upon her to show cause as to why

departmental action be not taken against her. It is only thereafter,

the FIR came to be lodged.

10. The allegations in the FIR are very vague. It has been

alleged that some of the villagers (co-accused) and the appellants

herein conspired together and harassed the informant mentally. It is

also alleged that all of them abused over her caste. The accused

named in the FIR are ten in number. It is difficult to imagine that all

of them would abuse the informant over her caste in a chores. No

specific day, date and time has been mentioned, as to when the

appellants herein had abused. It has also been alleged that the

appellants asked the informant to spend a little over Rs.One Lakh for

fixing the paver-blocks in the village, if she wants to have peace and

come clean out of the complaint made by the villagers.

11. It is reiterated that the FIR was lodged after over a year

was passed. Although the appellants have been named, no specific

allegation is attributed to them. The allegations in the FIR are to be

tested in the light of the fact that some of the villagers had preferred

a complaint against working of the informant. The complaint was

enquired into. The informant was prima facie found to have indulged

in misappropriation of the funds received for development of the

village. She has, therefore, been issued a notice by the Dy. Chief

Executive Officer of Zilla parishad, calling upon her to show cause as

to why departmental action be not taken against her. It is only

thereafter, the FIR has been lodged. Same suggests it to have been

filed afterthought and just as a counter to the departmental action

proposed against her at the instance of some of the villagers with

whom the appellants herein are alleged to have conspired with. As

such, the appellants have made out a strong prima facie for grant of

relief.

12. The appeal, therefore, succeeds. The same is allowed.

The order dated 18.11.2021 granting the appellants anticipatory bail,

is made absolute.

[R.G. AVACHAT, J.]

KBP