Bombay High Court
Bhikaji Baburao Kamble vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 17 January, 2024
Author: M. S. Karnik
Bench: M. S. Karnik
2024:BHC-AS:2448
Diksha Rane 909. APEAL 1208-23.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1208/2023
BHIKAJI BABURAO KAMBLE ..APPELLANT
VS.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. ..RESPONDENTS
------------
Adv. Kunal V. Patil a/w. Adv. Prashant P. Raul for the
appellant.
Mr. A. R. Patil, APP for the State.
Adv. Omneel A. Jadhav for the respondent no.2 (appointed
through legal aid).
------------
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J.
DATE : JANUARY 17, 2024.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned APP
for the State and learned counsel for the respondent no.2
appointed through Legal Aid to represent the respondent
no.2.
2. The appellant is arraigned as an accused no.2 in
connection with First Information Report (FIR) No.71/2023
registered with Shiroli MIDC Police Station, Kolhapur, on
2/4/2023 for the offence punishable under Sections 452,
363, 364-A, 386, 397, 376, 376-D, 354, 354-A, 341, 504,
506, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (hereafter 'IPC' for
Diksha Rane 909. APEAL 1208-23.doc
short) read with Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(1)(w)(i)(ii), 3(2)(va),
3(2)(v), 6 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
3. Learned APP and learned counsel for the respondent
no.2 submitted that the accusation against the present
appellant is serious. It is submitted that the statement of
the prosecutrix is corroborated with that of eye witness Atul
Tanaji Gaikwad.
4. The date of the incident is 2/3/2023. It is the case of
the prosecution that the son of the prosecutrix was a
gambler and had lost money in gambling which he owed to
the accused persons. The son of the prosecutrix was not
paying the money to the accused. The five accused,
therefore, forcibly entered in the house of the prosecutrix
and demanded return of the money. The son of the
prosecutrix was not present in the house. It is alleged that
the accused persons forcibly made the prosecutrix and one
Atul Gaikwad sit in the car. It is alleged that the prosecutrix
was made to sit between the accused persons on the front
seat. The accused persons misbehaved with the prosecutrix
and molested her. The accused persons committed the acts
Diksha Rane 909. APEAL 1208-23.doc
which constitutes the offence under the aforesaid
provisions. After the recovery of some part of the money,
the prosecutrix and the said Atul Gaikwad were let off.
5. It is the submission of learned counsel for the
respondent no.2 that the acts committed by the accused
persons was seen by the witness Atul Gaikwad in the rear
view mirror of the car. The witness Atul Gaikwad was
pleading with the accused persons that they should spare
the prosecutrix and not indulge in such acts.
6. The FIR was registered on 2/4/2023, one month after
the alleged incident. Learned counsel for the respondent
no.2 submitted that the delay has been sufficiently
explained as the daughter-in-law of the prosecutrix was
pregnant at the relevant time and therefore, the prosecutrix
did not lodge the complaint on the apprehension that any
such step may affect her daughter-in-law's health condition.
7. Even from the statement of the prosecutrix it is seen
that her son owed money to the accused persons. The
accused no.1 is the main accused. The appellant/accused
no.2 had accompanied the accused no.1. No doubt, there
are allegations in the statement of the prosecutrix even as
Diksha Rane 909. APEAL 1208-23.doc
regards the role of the appellant/accused no.2. In the facts
and circumstances of the present case, having regard to the
delay in lodging the FIR the possibility of the prosecutrix
and the witness exaggerating the allegations cannot be
ruled out so far as the present appellant is concerned, prima
facie it does not appear that the provisions of Atrocities Act
are attracted as the motive of the accused as per the
allegations was to recover the money which was owed to
them.
8. There is one criminal antecedent reported against the
appellant under Section 452 of the IPC. The appellant was
arrested on 3/4/2023 and now is in custody for more than
nine months with the possibility of the trial concluding any
time soon seems remote. The charge-sheet has been filed.
In such circumstances, I am inclined to enlarge the
appellant on bail, subject to imposing some conditions.
Hence, the following order.
: ORDER :
(a) Appellant - Bhikaji Baburao Kamble shall be released
on bail, in connection with FIR No. 71/2023 registered with
Shiroli MIDC Police Station, Kolhapur, on furnishing P.R. Bond
of Rs.15,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount.
Diksha Rane 909. APEAL 1208-23.doc
(b) The appellant is permitted to furnish cash bail surety
in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- for a period of 6 weeks in lieu of
surety.
(c) The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted
with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from
disclosing the facts to Court or any Police Officer. The
applicant shall not tamper with evidence.
(d) The appellant shall not reside in the area of Sadoli
Khalasa, Taluka Karveer, District Kolhapur on being released
on bail till further orders of the trial Court except for the
purpose of reporting to the investigating officer once every
two months, the first Monday of the concerned month
between 11.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. commencing February,
2024.
(e) On being released on bail, the appellant shall furnish
his contact number and residential address to the
Investigating Officer and shall keep him updated, in case
there is any change.
9. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
10. It is made clear that the observations made herein are
prima facie and the trial Court shall decide the case on its
own merits, in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the
observations made in this order.
(M. S. KARNIK, J.)
Signed by: Diksha Rane
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 18/01/2024 19:23:30
