Bombay High Court
Geetabai Gyaniram Kirnapure vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Davniwada ... on 20 March, 2023
Bench: Vinay Joshi, Bharat Pandurang Deshpande
48.apeal87.2023jud.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 87 OF 2023
1. Geetabai Gyaniram Kirnapure (In Jail)
Aged about 46 years,
Occupation : Household, ... Appellant
R/o. Lohara, Tah. & District - Gondia.
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Police Station Davniwada, Tah. Tirod,
District - Gondia. .. Respondents
2. Sau. Sevangan Rajesh Kirsan,
Aged about 31 years, Occ.: Labourer,
R/o. Lohara, Tq. & District - Gondia.
Mr. D.V. Mahajan, Advocate for appellant.
Mr. A.M. Kadukar, APP for respondent No.1.
Mr. A.M. Haque, Advocate (appointed) for respondent No.2.
CORAM : VINAY JOSHI, AND
BHARAT P. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED : 20.03.2023.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER: Vinay Joshi, J.)
. Heard.
(2) Admit. Heard finally by the consent of the learned
counsel for the respective parties.
PAGE 1 OF 5
::: Uploaded on - 21/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2023 18:33:11 :::
48.apeal87.2023jud.odt
(3) This is an appeal under Section 14-A of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989, raising a challenge to the order of rejection of bail dated
29.09.2022 (Exh.97) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia.
The appellant (accused) has been arrested on 06.07.2021 in Crime
No.134/2021, by the concerned police for the offences punishable
under Sections 302, 364, 324, 504, 506, 143, 144, 201 of the Indian
Penal Code and Sections 3(2)(5), 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(5)(a) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989.
(4) The appellant is in judicial custody. The police have
completed investigation and filed charge-sheet on 04.07.2021. The
appellant Geetabai has claimed bail on usual grounds. Besides that the
bail is also claimed on the ground of parity by pointing that co-
accused, namely, Sandip s/o Maniram Kirnapure having similar role
has been released by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.713/2022 vide
order dated 18.01.2023. Moreover, it is submitted that the material
collected against appellant is inadequate to curtail her liberty. It is
pointed out that there is a considerable delay in lodging of First
Information Report.
PAGE 2 OF 5
::: Uploaded on - 21/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2023 18:33:11 :::
48.apeal87.2023jud.odt
(5) The State, as well as, informant resisted for grant of
bail. It has been submitted that the appellant's presence on the spot
emerges from the FIR itself. Our attention has been invited to the
statement of witnesses, who stated appellant's participation in actual
incident. Moreover, it is argued that there are specific allegations that
soon after the assault while mother of injured was about to give water
to the injured, the appellant thrown away the bottle, which shows her
culpability.
(6) At the instance of report dated 03.07.2021, lodged
by the wife of deceased Raju, crime was registered. It is her contention
that on 23.06.2021, initially, some of the co-accused inquired about
her husband alleging that he has stolen motor cycle. In the afternoon,
12 named persons have cordoned her husband, including appellant
and Sandip Kirnapure (parity claimed). It is stated that co-accused
beat Raju by means of wooden-stick, chappal, causing him severe
injuries. The statement of eye-witnesses are similar who conveyed that
appellant, as well as Sandip Kirnapure were present in which both
have manhandled Raju. Additional role is assigned to appellant that
she prevented mother of injured to feed water.
(7) Beside merits the bail is claimed on the parity.
PAGE 3 OF 5
::: Uploaded on - 21/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2023 18:33:11 :::
48.apeal87.2023jud.odt
Undisputedly, role of appellant and Sandip Kirnapure regarding actual
incident of beating, is one and the same. The only additional factor is
that the appellant prevented to give water to injured Raju.
(8) We have gone through the injury report, which
shows that there were several injuries and cause of death was, due to
head injury. Though, there is little variation in the role, however, by
and large the appellant is also facing the similar allegations about
actual assault. Moreover, we have noted the fact that the appellant is a
lady and therefore, there are less chances of tampering.
(9) Though, the offence is gruesome, however, it is not
the allegation that the appellant has either used any weapon in the
occurrence. Her role is restricted to giving slaps to deceased and not
allowing to give him water. Having regard to nature of allegations
levelled against appellant, we deem it appropriate to release her on
bail as already investigation is complete. Moreover, on the ground of
parity also she is entitled for bail.
(10) In view of above, the appellant is entitled for bail.
Hence, we pass the following order:
PAGE 4 OF 5
::: Uploaded on - 21/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2023 18:33:11 :::
48.apeal87.2023jud.odt
ORDER
(i) Criminal appeal is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order of rejection of bail dated
29.09.2022, is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellant
- Geetabai Gyaniram Kirnapure shall be released on bail in
Crime No.134/2021, registered with Davniwada Police
Station, Tah. Tirod, District - Gondia, for the offences
punishable under Sections 302, 364, 324, 504, 506, 143,
144, 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(2)(5),
3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(5)(a) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, on
her furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.50,000/- with one solvent
surety in the like amount.
(iii) The appellant shall not in any manner try to contact
the prosecution witnesses till conclusion of trial.
(iv) The appellant shall attend the concerned Police
Station on first Monday of each month in between 10:00
a.m. to 12:00 noon for the period of six months from
today.
(v) Breach of either of condition would give rise to the
prosecution to seek for cancellation of bail.
[BHARAT P. DESHPANDE, J.] [VINAY JOSHI, J.]
Prity
PAGE 5 OF 5
