Bombay High Court
Balvinder Ramgadia And Ors vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 5 August, 2024
2024:BHC-AS:31226
Sonali Mane 32-APEAL-230-2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 230 OF 2024
Balvinder Ramgadia And Ors. ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra And Anr. ... Respondents
__________________________________________________
Mr. Karim Pathan a/w Fazlur Rahman Shaikh a/w S. I. Turky for the
Appellants.
Ms. Shilpa G. Talhar, App for the Respondent No.1 - State.
Mr. Manish Gaikwad a/w Mohammed Naved I Mulla for Respondent No. 2.
Mr. Dattatray Dhole, ACP, Dindoshi Division is present.
Mr. Shivaji Jadhav, PI Aarey Police Station is present.
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATE : 5 AUGUST 2024.
P.C. :
1) This Appeal is filed under provisions of Section 14-A of The
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 (SC & ST Act) challenging the Order dated 29 February 2024 passed
by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dindoshi rejecting Application filed by
Appellants seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R. No. 14 of 2024
registered with Aarey Police Station for offence punishable under Section
420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(r) and
3(1)(s) of SC & ST Act.
Digitally
signed by
___Page No.1 of 4___
MANE
MANE SONALI
SONALI DILIP
DILIP Date:
2024.08.06
5 August 2024
18:28:51
+0530
Sonali Mane 32-APEAL-230-2024.doc
2) The Appellants are granted interim protection by this Court by
Order dated 6 March 2024.
3) I have heard Mr. Pathan the learned counsel appearing for
Appellants, Mr. Gaikwad the learned counsel appearing for Respondent
No. 2 - Complainant and Ms. Shilpa Talhar the learned APP appearing for
Respondent No.1 - State.
4) Perusal of the F.I.R. would indicate that the same appears to
have been lodged on account of failed love relationship between the
Complainant and the Appellant No. 2. It is Complainant's case that
Appellant No. 2 had agreed to marry him. Complainant further alleges that
the Appellants have taken several amounts totaling Rs. 13,00,768/- from him
and have cheated him by not refunding the same. However, various incidents
quoted in the F.I.R. would indicate that the relationship between the duo
started since the year 2016 and the last incident mentioned in the F.I.R. is of
10 June 2019. The F.I.R. registered on 7 February 2024 does not reflect even
a single incident during long time gap of 5 years from 10 June 2019 to
7 February 2024.
5) Though it is sought to be highlighted by Mr. Gaikwad that
Complainant was required to make efforts for lodging of F.I.R. by
approaching this Court by filing Criminal Writ Petition (ST) No. 589 of
2024, the long delay in lodging of F.I.R. cannot at the same time be ignored
altogether.
___Page No.2 of 4___
5 August 2024
Sonali Mane 32-APEAL-230-2024.doc
6) Mr. Gaikwad has submitted that the F.I.R. contains specific
allegations of caste based abuses made in public view and that therefore bar
under Section 18 of the SC & ST Act is clearly attracted in the present case.
He has also relied on judgment of the Apex Court in Vilas Pandurang Pawar
and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 1. However, the alleged caste
based abuses by Appellant Nos. 1 and 3 are alleged to be made on
5 May 2019 and by Appellant No. 2 on 10 June 2019. There appears to be no
explanation as of now as to why the Complainant did not lodge complaint
against the Appellants immediately after the alleged caste based abuses. As
of now, there appears to be clear case for raising a suspicion in respect of
truth of allegations on account of considerable delay in lodging of F.I.R. In
fact, Mr. Pathan would allege that the F.I.R. was lodged only on account of
levelling of allegations against the Investigating Officer in Criminal Writ
Petition (ST) No. 589 of 2024 and though the same was simplicitor
adjourned on 29 January 2024 to enable the learned APP to take
instructions, the Police hurriedly lodged F.I.R. on 7 February 2024 in order
to prevent this Court from passing any orders in the said Petition. Be that as
it may. Considering considerable delay in lodging of the F.I.R. particularly
with regard to the accusation of caste based abuses, it cannot be said that
there exist a prima facie case so as to attract bar under Section 18 of the SC
& ST Act. Therefore, the ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court in Vilas
Pandurang Pawar (supra) may not strictly apply to the present case.
7) It also appears that investigations into the crime are almost
complete. The learned APP would confirm this position. It appears that the
Appellants have co-operated with the Investigating Officer for completion of
1 (2012) 0 AIR (SC) (Cri) 1630
___Page No.3 of 4___
5 August 2024
Sonali Mane 32-APEAL-230-2024.doc
the investigations. In that view of the matter, interim protection granted in
favour of Appellants deserves to be made absolute.
8) The Appeal accordingly succeeds and I proceed to pass the
following Order:
a) Order dated 29 January 2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Dindoshi, is set aside.
b) Interim Protection granted in favour of the Appellants by Order dated
6 March 2024 is made absolute.
c) Appellants shall attend the Court regularly on dates of hearing, unless
exempted.
d) Appellants shall not pressurize the informant or any other witnesses
acquainted with the facts of the case nor shall tamper with the evidence
either directly or indirectly.
e) The Appellants shall inform their latest place of residence and mobile
contact numbers and/or change of residence or mobile details, if any, from
time to time to the Trial Court as well as to the concerned Police Station in
writing.
9) With the above directions, the Appeal is allowed.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
___Page No.4 of 4___
5 August 2024
