Bombay High Court
Sanjay Sahebrao @ Rajebhau Shinde ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 30 June, 2022
Bench: V. V. Kankanwadi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
916 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.420 OF 2022
SANJAY SAHEBRAO @ RAJEBHAU SHINDE AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
...
Advocate for Appellants : Mr. Salunke Sudarshan J.
APP for Respondent No.1-State : Mr. S. P. Deshmukh
Advocate for Respondent No.2:Mr.N.D.Jaiswal, M.B.Jain, Shinde A.A.,
...
CORAM : SMT.VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.
DATE : 30-06-2022
ORDER JUDGMENT:
1. Heard both sides.
2. Since arguable points are made, the appeal is admitted.
3. By consent, the appeal is taken up for final disposal.
4. Appellants have filed present appeal under Section 14-A (2) of
the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act challenging the rejection of their Cri.Bail Appln. No. 176
of 2022 filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by
learned Special Judge under Atrocities Act, Majalgaon, District Beed,
on 04-06-2022.
5. Heard learned Advocate Mr. S. J. Salunke for appellants, learned
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/07/2022 23:58:32 :::
2 CriAppeal 420-2022
APP Mr. S. P Deshmukh For respondent No.1-State, and learned
Advocate Mr. N. D. Jaiswal for respondent No.2.
6. At the outset, it is to be noted that though the offence under
Section 3 (2) (va) of the Atrocities Act is involved in this case, in
view of the fact that the appellants were arrested, there is no
question of bar under Section 18 of the Atrocities Act. The said bar
is applicable only in respect of an application under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C.
7. The FIR has been lodged by respondent No.2 who is the widow
of deceased Bhagwan. According to her, she as well as her husband
had taken advance of Rs.2 lakh towards sugarcane cutting from one
Sanjay Shinde i.e. appellant No.1. According to her, they both had
worked with appellant No.1 since Diwali of 2021 till two months prior
to the FIR dated 13-05-2022. According to her, there after there
was dispute in respect of the payment, and therefore, she as well as
her husband went back to their village Borgaon, Taluka Majalgaon.
According to her at about 08.00 a.m. on 10-05-2022 the appellants
as well as one Gotu Shinde and Asaram Shinde along with two other
unknown persons went to her house and started saying that amount
is outstanding from the informant and her husband, and therefore,
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/07/2022 23:58:32 :::
3 CriAppeal 420-2022
that amount should be returned. Informant and her husband told
them that they should assess the account, and if at all the amount is
remaining, that would be given within four days. She says that she
as well as her husband were assaulted by slaps and fists and the
accused persons insisted that the amount should be given to them.
She further says that her brother-in-law Abhiman separated them,
but her husband was forcibly taken on motorcycle by the appellants
to Jaigaon Taluka Parli. Thereafter, she says that at about 08.00
a.m. on 12-05-2022 she was informed by one Sanjay Shinde that
her husband has committed suicide at Jaigaon in the iron sheet shed
in the field of one Gotu Asaram Shinde. She then states that she
went to hospital where the dead body of her husband was taken for
postmortem and then she has lodged the report which came to be
registered around 18.24 hours on 13-05-2022.
8. The informant in her FIR has not stated as to why she had not
lodged any report when her husband was forcibly taken by the
accused persons. At this stage offence under Section 365 of IPC has
been added which provides punishment for kidnapping or abducting
with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine a person. She has
even stated about the presence of her bother-in-law Abhiman. He
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/07/2022 23:58:32 :::
4 CriAppeal 420-2022
has also not lodged any report when Bhagwan was allegedly
abducted. For two days there is absolutely no action on the part of
the informant and then she had received, per her own story, the
intimation about death of her husband by hanging.
9. It was specifically asked to the learned APP as to whether the
police papers do disclose the intention of the prosecution to invoke
Section 302 of IPC, but then he says that he has not received any
instructions in that respect.
10. The situation that has been stated in the FIR now discloses
that when there was alleged abduction around 08.00 a.m. of 10-05-
2022 no action was taken by the informant and till 08.00 a.m. of 12-
05-2022 she had no knowledge as to where her husband is.
Therefore, whether the ingredients of Section 306 of IPC i.e.
abetment to commit suicide can be said to be fulfilling, is also a
question. No doubt, there appears to be certain transaction between
the informant, her husband on one part and the appellants on the
other part. But when the financial transaction was entered into by
the appellants with full knowledge that Bhagwan was member of a
particular caste, whether on that count only he could have been
driven to commit suicide, would be the matter for determination at
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/07/2022 23:58:32 :::
5 CriAppeal 420-2022
the time of trial.
11. The appellants have undergone the necessary custody and it
appears that the substantial part of the investigation is over.
Statement of Abhiman has been recorded. He is also silent as to
why he has not lodged any report about the abduction of his
brother. The post mortem report shows only one injury i.e. ligature
mark. The probable cause of death has been given as "death due to
hanging." When no other injury has been noted on the person of
the deceased, prima facie we can say that he was not assaulted by
anybody. The only fact that appears to be worth considering is the
place where the dead body was found that is said to be the field of
one Gotu Shinde. He is not before this Court and at this stage there
appears to be no investigation as to how deceased could have
reached till that place. Therefore, taking into consideration all these
aspects, the further custody of the appellants is not required, and
therefore, they deserves to be released on bail.
12. The learned Special Judge has not considered all the necessary
facts and it appears that he got swayed away with the previous
offences those were registered and he went on to observe that there
was a foul play. But whether that foul play was ventilated through a
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/07/2022 23:58:32 :::
6 CriAppeal 420-2022
legal proceeding, is a question and without proper evidence that
could not have been connected to the facts stated in the FIR. The
order passed by the learned Special Judge deserve to be set aside.
Hence, following order.
ORDER
1) Appeal stands allowed.
2) The order passed by the learned Special Judge,
Majalgaon, District Beed, in Criminal Bail application
No.176 of 2022 dated 04-06-2022 stands set aside. The
said application stands allowed.
3) Applicant/accused No.1 Sanjay s/o Sahebrao @
Rajebhau Shinde and appellant/accused No.2 Vijaykumar
s/o Maruti Gadade, arrested in connection with Crime
No.73 of 2022, registered with Sirsala Police Station,
Taluka Parli V., District Beed, be released on P.R. of
Rs.30,000/- each and two solvent sureties of
Rs.15,000/- each.
4) Appellants/accused to attend Police Station,
Majalgaon Rural, on every Thursday between 10.00 a.m.
to 02.00 p.m till filing of the charge-sheet.
5) The appellants/accused shall not tamper with the
evidence of the prosecution in any manner.
6) They shall not indulge in any criminal activity.
7) Bail before Trial Court.
(SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI)
JUDGE
vjg/-.
