Bombay High Court
Pralhad Dayaram Dhore And Anothaer vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps ... on 21 August, 2024
2024:BHC-NAG:9323
58.apeal.278.2024.judgment.odt
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.278 OF 2024
1. Pralhad Dayaram Dhore,
Aged about 54 Years,
Occupation : Agriculturist.
2. Rushikesh Pralhad Dhore,
Aged about 25 Years,
Occupation : Education,
Both are R/o Shivapur,
Taluka and District Akola. ..... APPELLANTS
// VERSUS //
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Khadan, Akola,
Police Station, Khadan Akola.
2. Mangesh Waman Damodhar, .... (Complainant)
Age - 32 Years,
R/o. Shiopur,
Tahsil and District - Akola. .... RESPONDENTS
----------------------------------------
Mr. Firdos Mirza, Senior Counsel a/b Mr. Z. Z. Haq
Counsel for the appellants.
Mr. U. R. Phasate, APP for the respondent No.1/State.
Ms. C. S. Bhute, appointed Counsel for the respondent
No.2.
----------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
DATED : 21.08.2024
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard.
2. Admit.
58.apeal.278.2024.judgment.odt
3. The appellant has challenged the order dated
02.05.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge under the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act rejecting the bail application of the present
appellants. The present appeal is filed under Section 14-A
of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to
as 'the Act of 1989').
4. The appellants are apprehending the arrest at the
hands of police as crime is registered against them on the
basis of report lodged by Mangesh Waman Damodhar vide
Crime No.302/2024. In the said report, it is alleged that
there was a previous dispute between the informant and the
family members of the appellants. On 18.03.2024 at about
4.00 p.m. he had been to the house of Pralhad Dhore. At
the relevant time, he was assaulted by both the appellants
by means of iron pipe as well as by giving slaps to him.
Due to the assault, he sustained grievous injuries and he
was admitted to the hospital and he undergone surgery. On
the basis of the said report, police have registered the crime
against the present appellants.
58.apeal.278.2024.judgment.odt
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants
submitted that the falsity of the incident appears from the
documents which are collected during the investigation. He
invited my attention towards the report submitted by the
investigating agency before the Court which shows that the
informant has received the injuries in an incident dated
15.03.2024. He also pointed out that on 15.03.2024 one
another FIR was registered against the informant which
shows that he received the injuries on 15.03.2024. Thus,
he submitted that as far as the injuries on 18.03.2024 are
concerned, the contradictory evidence was collected by the
investigating agency as far as the application of provisions
of the Act of 1989 are concerned, there is no allegation that
either present appellants have abused the informant on his
caste. There is no statement that though present
appellants were knowing that the informant belongs to the
Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, he was assaulted.
Thus, he submitted that bar under Section 18 of the Act of
1989 will not attract in the present case, in view of that, the
appellants be protected by granting anticipatory bail.
6. Learned APP for the State and learned appointed
Counsel for the respondent No.2 strongly opposed the
58.apeal.278.2024.judgment.odt
appeal on the ground that sufficient evidence is collected
during the investigation by the Investigating Officer shows
that the informant was assaulted by the present appellants.
The informant belongs to the Scheduled Castes or
Scheduled Tribes and knowingly he was assaulted therefore,
bar under Section 18 of the Act of 1989 is attracted, in view
of that the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
7. After hearing the learned Counsel for the
appellants and learned APP for the State and learned
appointed Counsel for the respondent No.2, perused the
entire investigation papers, from which it appears that prior
to this incident on 15.03.2024 the informant was admitted
in the hospital and he was treated in the hospital. The
report filed by the investigating agency also shows that he
received the injuries on 15.03.2024. Thus, the submission
of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants that if he
was admitted in the hospital on 15.03.2024, there is no
material to show that he was discharged from the hospital.
His presence at the house of the present appellants is
doubtful. He submitted that the entire documents collected
during the investigation shows his admission on 15.03.2024
itself. Thus, considering the statements recorded during the
58.apeal.278.2024.judgment.odt
investigation which alleges that the informant was assaulted
by the present appellants is contradicted by the medical
certificate. The presence of the informant at the house of
the present appellants itself is doubtful, if he was admitted
in the hospital. Thus, considering the contradictory
statement, there is substance in the submission made by
the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and the
prosecution case becomes doubtful. It is well settled that
when prima facie case is not made out, the bar under
Section 18 of the Act of 1989 will not attract. Considering
the same, the bar under Section 18 of the Act of 1989 will
not attract in the present case, the appellants have made
out a case for grant of anticipatory bail. At the same time,
the submissions made by the learned APP requires some
consideration that the incriminating weapons are yet to be
required, in view of that, some conditions requires to be
imposed on the present appellants. Accordingly, I proceed
to pass following order:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed.
(ii) The order passed by the learned Special Court
dated 02.05.2024 rejecting the bail application in
58.apeal.278.2024.judgment.odt
Misc. Criminal Application No.206/2024, is hereby
quashed and set aside.
(iii) The appellant No.1 Pralhad Dayaram Dhore
and No2. Rushikesh Pralhad Dhore shall be
released on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest, in
connection with Crime No.302/2024 registered with
Police Station Khadan, District Akola for the offences
punishable under Sections 323, 325, 365, 504 and
506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and
under Sections 3(2)(va), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(v) of
the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, on executing PR
Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one solvent
surety of the like amount.
(iv) The appellants shall produce the iron pipes which
are used in the commission of crime before the
Investigating Officer and the said period will be
considered as their custody for the purpose of Section
27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
(v) The appellants shall not induce, threat or
promise any witnesses who are acquainted with the
facts of the case.
(vi) The appellants shall attend the proceeding before
the learned Special Court without seeking any
exemption unless there are exceptional circumstances.
(vii) The trial Court shall not be influenced by the
condition imposed on the appellants regarding
production of the incriminating weapons before the
Investigating Officer.
8. The fees of the appointed Counsel be quantified as per
rules.
58.apeal.278.2024.judgment.odt
9. The appeal is disposed of
(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)
Sarkate.
Signed by: Mr. A.R. Sarkate
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 22/08/2024 15:07:07
