Bombay High Court
Akash S/O Nehru Pardhi And Another vs State Of Mah. Thr. Ps Warthi ... on 23 March, 2022
Bench: V.M. Deshpande, Amit B. Borkar
1 909-apeal-6-22j.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 6 OF 2022
1. Akash S/o. Nehru Pardhi,
Aged 25 years, Occ. Labour,
2. Devanand S/o. Yashwant Sharnagat,
Aged 19 years, Occ. Labour
Both R/o. Yearli, Taluka Tumsar,
District Bhandara. . . . APPELLANTS
...V E R S U S..
1. State of Maharashtra through
Police Station, Warthi (Bhandara)
2. Dikshant S/o. Dipak Waghmare,
Aged about 21 years, Occ. Labour,
R/o. Yearli, Tahsil Tumsar,
Dist. Bhandara . . . RESPONDENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri K. S. Motwani, Advocate for appellants.
Shri M. K. Pathan, APP for respondent no. 1/State.
Ms. Shiba Thakur, Advocate for respondent no. 2.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM :- V. M. DESHPANDE AND
AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
DATED :- 23.03.2022
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : V. M. DESHPANDE, J.) :-
1. Heard Shri K. S. Motwani, learned Advocate for the
appellant, Shri M. K. Pathan, learned APP for respondent no. 1/State
and Ms. Shiba Thakur, learned Advocate for respondent no. 2.
2 909-apeal-6-22j.odt
2. Admit.
3. The matter is taken up for final hearing immediately.
4. This appeal under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short
"the Act of 1989") is filed by the appellants in view of the rejection of
their regular bail application by the learned Special Judge, Bhandara
on 20.12.2021
5. The appellants are co-accused alongwith other four
accused persons in Crime No. 356/2021 registered with Police Station
Tumsar, Dist. Bhandara. The Investigation Officer has completed the
entire investigation and charge-sheet is also filed against the accused
for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 143, 147, 148, 149,
120 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3(2)(v), 3(2)
(va) of the Act of 1989 and Section 4/25 of the Indian Arms Act.
6. The deceased in this prosecution's case is one Dilesh
Waghmare. The incident in question has occurred on 06.10.2021. The
oral report is lodged by one Dikshant Waghmare- brother of the
deceased. From the report it is clear that Dikshant is not a eye-witness
and on getting information about assault made on his brother, he
reached the spot. From the First Information Report (FIR) it is clear
3 909-apeal-6-22j.odt
that there was dispute in between the deceased- Dilesh and co-
accused Arvind @ Pintu Istaru Pardhi. In the FIR, the first informant
has disclosed his suspicion that this Arvind @ Pintu Istaru Pardhi has
killed his brother.
7. During the course of the investigation, the Investigation
Officer recorded statement of various witnesses. The statement of one
Jitendra was pressed into service by prosecuting agency as well as by
the respondent no. 2. Perusal of the charge-sheet would show that his
statement were recorded on two occasions. Firstly his statement was
recorded on 07.10.2021 and another statement was recorded on
23.10.2021. In the first statement dated 07.10.2021, the learned APP
could not pointed out presence of the present appellants. However, in
statement dated 23.10.2021, the names of present appellants surfaces.
No doubt true that in the supplementary statement it is stated by this
prosecution witness that initially when his statement was recorded, he
was frightened at that time and therefore, he could not disclose the
entire case. Be that as it may, in the statement dated 23.10.2021 there
is no overt act attributed against the present appellants. It is not his
statement that actual assault was made by the present appellants.
According to the learned APP for the State and learned Advocate for
the complainant the appellants were sharing common intention at the
time of assault. Whether at the time of assault, the appellants were
4 909-apeal-6-22j.odt
sharing common intention or not is a question of fact and that can be
determined only in the trial after full-fledged evidence. There is no
mention of any overt act on the part of the appellants in the charge-
sheet. Further, learned APP fairly states that there is no recovery at the
instance of the present appellant except their clothes, which were
having no blood-stains.
8. In that view of the matter, we pass the following order:-
i) The appeal is allowed.
ii) The order dated 20.12.2021 passed by learned Special
Judge, Bhandara rejecting the application of bail on behalf of the
present appellants is quashed and set aside.
iii) Appellant - Akash S/o. Nehru Pardhi and Devanand S/o.
Yashwant Sharnagat, who are arrested in connection with Crime No.
356/2021 registered with Police Station Tumsar, Dist. Bhandara for the
offence punishable under Sections 302, 143, 147, 148, 149, 120 and
201 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) of
the Act of 1989 and Section 4/25 of the Indian Arms Act be released
on bail on they executing P.R. bond of Rs. Five Thousand each with one
solvent surety in the like amount.
5 909-apeal-6-22j.odt
iv) The appellants are directed to attend concerned Police
Station once in a three month and to mark their presence with Police
Station Officer till the trial is over.
v) The appellants shall not extend any threats to the
complainant or his family members.
(AMIT B. BORKAR, J.) (V. M. DESHPANDE, J.)
Digitally signed
by JAISWAL
JAISWAL RAJNESH
RAJNESH RAMESH
Date:
RAMESH 2022.03.24
17:00:56 +0530
RR Jaiswal
