Santosh Dattaram Chavan And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 409 Bom

                                                  1/8                       04-APEAL-270-21.odt

                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                         CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.270 OF 2021

                       Santosh Dattaram Chavan & Ors.                   .... Appellants
                                  versus
                       State of Maharashtra & Anr.                      .... Respondents
                                                   .......

                       •     Mr. Saurabh Butala Advocate for Appellants.
                       •     Mr. S. R. Agarkar, APP for the State/Respondent No.1.
                       •     Ms. Gayatri Gokhale (Appointed) Advocate for Respondent No.2.

                                                 CORAM       : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.

                                                 DATE        : 11th JANUARY, 2023

                       P.C. :

1. The Appellants are challenging the Judgment and

Order dated 08/09/2020 passed by the Special Judge under the

SCST Act, Greater Mumbai, in Criminal Anticipatory Bail

Application No.884 of 2020. In effect, the Appellants are seeking

anticipatory bail in connection with C.R.No.244/2020 registered

at Navghar police station on 06/08/2020 u/s 324, 504, 506 r/w

34 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s)(za)A of

Digitally signed by The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of MANUSHREE MANUSHREE V V NESARIKAR NESARIKAR Date:

2023.01.12 16:50:33 +0530 Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for short 'Atrocities Act'). The Appellant

Nesarikar 2/8 04-APEAL-270-21.odt

Nos.1 and 2 are the husband and wife. The Appellant No.3 is

their daughter.

2. Heard Mr. Saurabh Butala, learned counsel for the

Appellants, Ms. Gayatri Gokhale, learned counsel for the

Respondent No.2 and Mr. S. R. Agarkar, learned APP for the State.

3. The FIR is lodged by the Respondent No.2. He has

stated that his family and the Appellant's family were residing in

the neighbourhood. They were having some dispute about the

access road to the Respondent No.2's house. There is reference

to some utterance in January 2020 with reference to caste. But

the main subject matter of this FIR is the incident dated

10/06/2020. The FIR mentions that, on that date, at about

02.00 p.m. there was some incident. Appellant No.2, alleged

that the Respondent No.2 had damaged her flower-pots. At

about 06.30 p.m. the Respondent No.2 was sitting outside his

house, again the Appellant No.2 started abusing. The

Respondent No.2 asked her to stop. It is alleged that the 3/8 04-APEAL-270-21.odt

Appellant No.2 abused him with reference to his caste. In the

meantime, the other two Appellants came there. They also

abused him with reference to caste. It is alleged that the

Appellants assaulted the Respondent No.2 and his daughter with

stick. According to him he had gone to Navghar police station to

lodge a complaint. But since other Residents pacified him, he did

not lodge his FIR. In the meantime the Appellants had lodged

their FIR on 17/06/2020. It is further alleged that on

26/07/2020, the Appellant No.2 poured dirty water on the

Respondent No.2's daughter. Therefore, finally he lodged his FIR.

4. Learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that this

FIR is counterblast to the FIR lodged by the Appellant No.2. He

invited my attention to the NC complaint and the FIR registered

at the instance of the Appellant No.2. The NC was lodged

immediately on 10/06/2020 after the incident. It was lodged by

the Appellant No.2 against the Respondent No.2. After that, the

Appellant No.2 lodged an FIR vide C.R.No.126/2020 at Navghar

Police Station on 17/06/2020 u/s 324, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the 4/8 04-APEAL-270-21.odt

Indian Penal Code. The FIR mentions the same incident, in

which the Appellant No.2 was assaulted and abused. After this

FIR, an NC was lodged by the Respondent No.2's daughter on

18/06/2020 in respect of the same incident dated 10/06/2020.

In that NC, there was no reference to the abuses with reference

to caste. In any case that NC is lodged only against the Appellant

Nos.1 and 3. The FIR against the Appellants makes allegations

that the abuses were given by the Appellant No.2 but the NC is

not even lodged against the Appellant No.2.

5. After this NC a complaint was given on 18/06/2020

about the same incident dated 10/06/2020. As mentioned in the

FIR, this complaint was not pursued and it is mentioned that a

false FIR was lodged against the Respondent No.2. Ultimately he

lodged the FIR on 06/08/2020. Learned counsel for the

Appellants submitted that all this shows that the FIR is lodged as

an afterthought and a counterblast to the FIR lodged by the

Respondent No.2. The FIR shows that the Appellant No.2 had

suffered some injuries and there is absolutely no reference to 5/8 04-APEAL-270-21.odt

such injuries to the Appellant No.2. In the FIR lodged against

her, which shows that the Respondent No.2 has suppressed the

important facts.

6. Learned APP as well as learned counsel for Respondent

No.2 opposed this application. They submitted that offence

under the Atrocities Act is made out and therefore the bar u/s

18 of the said Atrocities Act will operate and anticipatory cannot

be granted to the Appellants.

7. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 submitted

that the FIR was not restricted to the incident dated 10/06/2020

but there was a reference to an incident dated 26/07/2020

when the Appellant No.2 had allegedly poured dirty water on

the Respondent No.2's daughter.

8. Learned APP produced the investigation papers which

contained the statements of Joel, Mukesh Badgujar and Raju

Patil recorded respectively on 14/08/2020, 15/08/2020 and

20/08/2020. Joel was a chance witness and he has attributed 6/8 04-APEAL-270-21.odt

abuses only to the Appellant No.3. The other witness Mukesh

Badgujar has not referred to the incident dated 10/06/2020.

Raju Patil has again attributed abuses only to the Appellant

No.3. However, all these statements are recorded much

belatedly in August 2020. They also do not make any reference

to the injuries suffered by the Appellant No.2. The investigation

shows that the Respondent No.2's daughter had suffered one

abrasion on forearm and the Respondent No.2 has suffered

contusion and small swelling over the right leg.

9. I have considered these submissions. Apparently there

was a scuffle between the two groups in which both the parties

have suffered some injuries. The FIR against the Appellants does

not make any reference as to how the Appellant No.2 had

suffered injuries. The injury certificate shows that the Appellant

No.2 had suffered one abrasion on left side of the forehead of

the size 2 x 1 cm. There was one contusion over the left arm of

the size 4 x 2 cm and there was redness on the right forearm of

the size 3 x 2 cm. These injuries were caused during the same 7/8 04-APEAL-270-21.odt

incident for which a separate FIR is lodged by the Appellant

No.2. Thus, the Respondent No.2 has suppressed some

important facts in his FIR.

10. This has to be seen in the background of the NC lodged

by the Respondent No.2's daughter on 18/06/2020 about the

same incident. All these important allegations in the FIR

regarding the same incident are not mentioned in that particular

NC. The FIR itself was lodged belatedly on 06/08/2020. Though

there was some complaint made by the Respondent No.2 on

20/06/2020 even that first complaint to the police was made

after the NC dated 18/06/2020 was lodged by the Respondent

No.2' daughter. Thus, there is scope to believe that the

allegations in the FIR are result of the grudge which the

Respondent No.2 was holding against the Appellants and there

is exaggeration about the important aspects. The Respondent

No.2 has suppressed the cause of injuries suffered by the

Appellant No.2. Therefore in this background, reasonable doubt

is created about the case of the Respondent No.2. Therefore it 8/8 04-APEAL-270-21.odt

would not be fair to deny relief of anticipatory bail to the

Appellants. All these questions can be decided during the course

of the trial. It is made clear that all these observations are

restricted to passing of this order and these observations shall

not be used at any other stage.

11. Hence, the following order :

ORDER

(i) The Appeal is allowed.

(ii) In the event of their arrest in connection with C.R.No.244/2020 registered at Navghar police station, the Appellants are directed to be released on bail on their furnishing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) each, with one or two sureties each, in the like amount.

(iii) The Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)