Bombay High Court
Sau Usha W/O Ambadas Salokar vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Pso ... on 30 August, 2024
2024:BHC-NAG:9995
J.48.cri.appeal.423.24.odt 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.423 OF 2024
Sau. Usha w/o Ambadas Salokar,
Aged about 35 years, Occupation - Labour,
R/o Mana, Tah - Murtizapur,
District Akola
...APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through its P.S.O. Shivaji Nagar,
Tah. Khamgaon, District Buldhana
2. Abhishek s/o Sadashiv Ghope,
Aged about 29 years,
Occupation - Nil,
R/o. Pundlik Nagar, Ghatpuri,
Tah. Khamgaon, District Buldhana
...RESPONDENTS
_______________________________________________________
Mr. A.N. Shinde, Advocate for the appellant.
Mrs. M.A. Barabde, APP for the State.
_______________________________________________________
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
DATED : AUGUST 30, 2024.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
ADMIT. Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel
for the parties.
2. This is an appeal under Section 14A of the Scheduled Caste
and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter
J.48.cri.appeal.423.24.odt 2/5
referred to as 'the Atrocities Act' for short), the appellant has challenged
the order dated 02/08/2024 whereby the Additional Sessions Judge,
Khamgaon, District Buldhana rejected the anticipatory bail application of
the appellant bearing Criminal Bail Application No.311/2024.
3. The accusation against the present appellant is on the basis
of report lodged by Abhishek Sadashiv Bhope on an allegation that he is
residing along with his family members at Pundalik Nagar, Ghatpuri,
Taluka Khamgaon and earning his livelihood by driving the
auto-rickshaw. The co-accused Gajanan Salokar is residing in his
neighbourhood and there was previous dispute between him and his
neighbour. On 10/07/2024 at about 5:30 PM he has witnessed his wife
communicating with one Ambadas. At that time, there was hot exchange
of words between him and Ambadas. On that count, said Ambadas
Salokar and his wife Usha Ambadas Salokar i.e. the present appellant
came near his house holding wooden logs and sword in their hand, he
was abused in a filthy language and thereafter he was assaulted by the
present appellant as well as the co-accused. The present appellant has
assaulted him by means of wooden logs due to which he has sustained
the grievous injuries.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that as far as
the role of the present appellant is concerned only general allegations is
J.48.cri.appeal.423.24.odt 3/5
made against her. The co-accused is already arrested. He submitted that
the allegation against the present appellant is not as to the abuses on her
caste, therefore, the provisions of Atrocities Act are not attracted, and
therefore, bar under Section 18 of the Atrocities Act is also not attracted.
He submitted that the custodial interrogation of the present appellant is
not required. In view of that, she be protected by granting anticipatory
bail.
5. Learned APP strongly opposed the appeal on the ground
that the injured has sustained the grievous injuries. There is an
amputation with multiple fractures. Even if the aspect of applicability of
the Atrocities Act is kept aside then also the serious allegations are made
against the appellant who has assaulted the injured by means of wooden
logs which resulted into the grievous injuries. Considering the
allegations against the present appellant, her custodial interrogation is
required to recover the incriminating article. In view of that, the appeal
deserves to be dismissed.
6. Though respondent No.2 is served, none appears for
respondent No.2.
7. I have heard learned Counsel for both the parties. Perused
the impugned order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon
J.48.cri.appeal.423.24.odt 4/5
wherein Additional Sessions Judge has observed that the little finger of
the informant is missing when he was taken to the hospital. Observation
in the Medico-legal Case (MLC) also shows due to severe injuries his
finger was amputated. The MLC report shows that the informant
sustained multiple sharp edge lacerated wounds over his left hand palm.
Nature of wound clearly suggests used of sharp edge weapon like sword
as well as she sustained the blunt trauma and multiple injuries in the
assault. I have also perused the recitals of the FIR as well as the other
investigation papers from which it reveals that due to the trifle reasons
the informant was assaulted by the present appellant as well as her
husband and due to which he has lost his one finger and there are
multiple injuries on the person of the injured. Thus, even it is considered
that the provisions of the Atrocities Act are not applicable as there is no
allegation that present appellant has abused the informant or his family
members on their caste, then also the role attributed to the present
appellant shows that not only the informant but the wife of the
informant has also sustained the injuries in the said incident.
Considering that present appellant to whom the vital role is assigned
that she has assaulted by means of wooden logs and caused the injuries
to the informant as well as his wife is sufficient to reject the prayer of
anticipatory bail. Though custodial interrogation of the present appellant
is not required but considering the manner in which the alleged incident
J.48.cri.appeal.423.24.odt 5/5
has taken place, the case is not made out to use the discretion in favour
of the present appellant. In view of that, the appeal is devoid of merits
and liable to be dismissed.
8. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed accordingly.
(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)
*Divya
