Bombay High Court
Akshay Gajanan Dere vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Pso ... on 14 August, 2024
2024:BHC-NAG:9148
1 64appeal366.2024.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 366 OF 2024
APPELLANT: Akshay Gajanan Dere,
Age 27 years, Occu: Labourer,
R/o Edlapur, Tq. Akot, District Akola.
...V E R S U S...
RESPONDENTS 1] The State of Maharashtra,
Through P.S.O. Hiwarkhed,
Tq. Telhara, District Akola.
2] Seema Suresh Bagde,
Aged 35 years, Occu: Housewife,
R/o Chorwad, Tq. Akot, District Akola.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Vipul Babarao Bhise, counsel for appellant.
Mr. K.R. Lule, APP for respondent/State.
Mr. S.D. Dharaskar, counsel for respondent No.2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
DATE : 14/08/2024
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard.
2. Admit.
3. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel
appearing for the parties.
4. By preferring this appeal, the appellant has challenged the
2 64appeal366.2024.odt
order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akot in
Criminal Bail Application No. 89/2024, by which the application of
the present appellant for grant of anticipatory bail is rejected.
5. The appellant is apprehending the arrest at the hands of
police in connection with Crime No. 223/2024 registered with
Hiwarkhed Police Station for offences punishable under Sections
324, 354, 354-A, 354-B, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,
and Sections 3(2), 3(2)(va), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i), and 3(1)
(w)(ii) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the "Atrocities
Act").
6. The crime is registered on the basis of a report lodged by
Seema Suresh Bagde alleging that there was a political rivalry
between her husband and the present appellant on account of the
Gram Panchayat election. On 20/06/2024, the present appellant
abused them based on their caste, as well as gave a blow of
weapon on the head of her husband, due to which her husband
has sustained the injury. On the basis of said report, police have
registered the crime against the present appellant. After
registration of the crime, the present appellant approached the
Special Court for grant of bail, but the Special Court has rejected
3 64appeal366.2024.odt
the application, considering there is a bar under Section 18 of the
Atrocities Act.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. V.B. Bhise submitted
that, as far as the present appellant is concerned, there is no
allegation against him that he has abused the informant or her
husband on their caste, that allegation is levelled against the other
co-accused, i.e., Amol Anasane. He submitted that, as far as the
present appellant is concerned, it is the only allegation that he has
given a blow by means of weapon on the head of the deceased.
The deceased has sustained a simple injury in the said incident.
Subsequently, he was discharged from the hospital. As far as the
recovery of the weapon is concerned, the present appellant is
ready to produce the same and will cooperate with the
investigating agency. The custodial interrogation of the present
appellant is not required. In view of that, he be protected by
granting anticipatory bail.
8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned counsel
for the complainant strongly opposed the said appeal on the
ground that, in furtherance of common intention, the present
appellant and other co-accused abused and humiliated the
informant and her husband, and her husband was assaulted by the
4 64appeal366.2024.odt
present appellant by giving blows on his head. There is a bar under
Section 18, and therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly
rejected the application.
9. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and
learned counsel for the respondent, perused the order passed by
the learned Special Court, which shows that, in view of the bar
under Section 18, the application for grant of anticipatory bail is
rejected. It is well settled that when prima-facie case is not made
out, the anticipatory bail in case of the Atrocities Act is
maintainable. On perusal of recitals of the FIR, it reveals that, as
far as the allegation regarding the abuses of the caste is concerned,
which are levelled against the co-accused. It further reveals that
cross-complaints are filed by both the parties against each other,
wherein the similar types of allegations are levelled against each
other. As far as the present appellant is concerned, against whom
the allegation is that he has given a blow by weapon on the head
of the husband of the complainant, the medical certificate is on
record, which shows that he has sustained the injuries, i.e.,
laceration and abrasion, which are simple in nature. He was
treated in the hospital and thereafter discharged from the hospital.
Thus, considering the role attributed to the present appellant,
5 64appeal366.2024.odt
admittedly, the bar would not attract against him, as no prima-
facie case as far as the application of the provision of the Atrocities
Act is concerned. Learned trial court ought to have considered the
same while considering the application for grant of anticipatory
bail, as no prima-facie case is made out against the present
appellant, the bar under Section 18 is not attracted, and
considering that now injured is already discharged from the
hospital. As far as the custodial interrogation is concerned, which
can be taken care of by imposing certain conditions on the present
appellant, in view of that, the appeal deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order:
a] The appeal is allowed.
b] The order dated 08/07/2024 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Akot in Misc. Criminal
Bail Application No. 89/2024 is hereby quashed
and set aside.
c] In the event of the arrest, the appellant- Akshay
Gajanan Dere, shall be released on anticipatory
bail, in connection with Crime No. 223/2024
registered with Hiwarkhed Police Station for
offences punishable under Sections 324, 354,
6 64appeal366.2024.odt
354-A, 354-B, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
and Sections 3(2), 3(2)(va), 3(1)(r), 3(1) (s), 3(1)
(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii) of the Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989, on executing P.R. Bond of Rs. 25,000/- with
one solvent surety in the like amount.
d] The appellant shall attend the concerned Police
Station once in a week on Sunday between 10.00
a.m. to 01.00 p.m. till filing of the charge-sheet.
e] The appellant shall produce the weapon before the
investigating agency, and this period will be
considered as his custody for the purpose of Section
27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
f] The appellant shall not induce, threat or promise
any witnesses who are acquainted with the facts of
the present case.
The criminal appeal is disposed of
accordingly.
[URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.]
Signed by: Mr. R.K. NANDURKAR
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 19/08/2024 16:43:47
