Aman Suresh Kamble vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4919 Bom

                                                        915-Cri-Appeal-209-2022.odt




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                        CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 209 OF 2022

 Aman Suresh Kamble                           ... Appellant
       Versus
 The State of Maharashtra and others          ... Respondents
                                 ....
 Mr. B. M. Dhanure, Advocate for appellant
 Mrs. Geeta L. Deshpande, APP for respondent No.1-State
 Mr. Ram S. Shinde, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3
                                 ....

                                   CORAM : R. G. AVACHAT, J.

DATED : 06th MAY, 2022

PER COURT :-

. Heard.

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

anticipatory bail to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein in

connection with Crime No.3 of 2022, registered at Udgir Rural Police

Station, Taluka Udgir, District Latur for the offences punishable

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

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

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

                                                                        1 of 3





                                         (( 2 ))           915-Cri-Appeal-209-2022

3. The appellant herein is the informant. The challenge to

the impugned order is mainly on the ground that the appellant had

not been given notice of the application for anticipatory bail

preferred by these respondents. According to him, in terms of

Section 15-(5) of the Act, a victim is entitled to be heard at any

proceeding under the Act in respect of bail, discharge, release etc.

4. The learned Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3

placed on record a copy of Vakalatnama filed on behalf of the

appellant herein in a proceeding before the Court concerned.

5. The learned Advocate for the appellant then came

around to concede that the opportunity of hearing was given to the

appellant. As such, the main ground on which the order impugned

has been challenged in this appeal, no longer survived.

6. On the question of merits of the case, it is to be stated

that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 allegedly abused the informant

over his caste. The fact is that the FIR has been lodged one and half

months after the alleged incidence cannot be ignored.

                                                                                    2 of 3





                                         (( 3 ))           915-Cri-Appeal-209-2022

7. As such, veracity of the allegations in the FIR are

seriously in doubt. The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of

Hariram Bhambhi vs. Satyanarayan and another (2021 SCC OnLine

SC 1010) is distinguishable on facts.

8. This Court finds the learned Judge to have rightly

granted the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 pre-arrest bail. This Court finds

no reason to interfere with the order impugned.

9. The appeal is therefore dismissed.

[ R. G. AVACHAT, J. ]

SMS

3 of 3