Bombay High Court
Parikshit @ Pawan Anna Chaudhari And Ors vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 29 January, 2024
Author: M. S. Karnik
Bench: M. S. Karnik
2024:BHC-AS:4162
PMB 23.apeal.1219-23.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1219 OF 2023
1. PARIKSHIT @ PAWAN ANNA CHAUDHARI
2. VIJAY KASHINATH MORE
3. SURESH RAGHUNATH DESHMUKH
4. TEJAS SURESH DESHMUKH
5. DATTATREYA RAGHUNATH DESHMUKH ..APPELLANTS
VS.
1. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
ALIBAUG, DISTRICT : RAIGAD
3. SUB-DIVISIONAL POLICE OFFICER
KHALAPUR, DISTRICT : RAIGAD
4. PRASHANT PRAKASH GAIKWAD ..RESPONDENTS
------------
Adv. Dnyaneshwar Deshmukh for the appellants.
Mr. S. H. Yadav, APP for the respondent Nos.1 to 3-State.
Adv. Vijay Singh a/w Adv. Daksha Punghera i/b. Desai Legal
for respondent No.4.
Mr. Sudhir Shinde, PSI, DYSP Office Khalapur Section,
Khalapur.
------------
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J.
DATE : JANUARY 29, 2024
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned APP
for the State and learned counsel for respondent No.4.
PMB 23.apeal.1219-23.doc
2. This is an appeal for quashing and setting aside the
impugned order dated 07.10.2023 rejecting the anticipatory
bail application passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Panvel, District Raigad in connection with FIR bearing C.R.
No.190 of 2023 registered with Rasayani Police Station,
Taluka Khalapur, District Raigad for the offences punishable
under Sections 143, 147, 149, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 3(1)(r),(s) and 3(2)
(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereafter "Atrocities
Act", for short).
3. Respondent No.4 is the complainant. The date of the
incident is 02.08.2023. The FIR was registered on
11.09.2023. It is the case of the respondent No.4-
complainant that adjoining his land is an adivasi land. The
appellant No.1 is in illegal possession of the said land which
is an adivasi land. There are boundary disputes between the
respondent No.4 and the appellant No.1. The respondent
No.4 got the land surveyed and measured when it was
realised by him that certain portion of the land which
PMB 23.apeal.1219-23.doc
belongs to the respondent No.4 was encroached by the
appellant No.1. Accordingly, respondent No.4 requested the
appellant No.1 to remove the wall and clear the
encroachment made on the portion which belongs to the
respondent No.4. The appellant No.1 also damaged the
compound wall belonging to the respondent No.4. In view of
these disputes the respondent No.4 had filed N.C. and made
applications for measurements from time to time to the
Land Survey Office. On the date of the incident i.e.
02.08.2023, when the Land Survey officials were at the site
for measurement of the lands, it is alleged that the
appellant No.1 had abused the respondent No.4 in the
name of his caste. It is the version of respondent No.4 that
the appellant No.1 was interested in purchasing the land
belonging to the respondent No.4 and in that context had
requested the respondent No.4 to show him all the
documents whereafter the appellant No.1 became aware of
the caste to which the respondent No.4 belongs.
Respondent No.4 however refused to sell his portion of the
land to the appellant No.1. It is alleged that on 02.08.2023
PMB 23.apeal.1219-23.doc
at about 4.30 p.m., when the measurements were going on,
in front of independent witnesses and the staff who had
come to measure the land, the appellant No.1 abused the
respondent No.4 in the name of his caste.
4. Learned APP and learned counsel for respondent No.4
opposed the appeal.
5. I have perused the paper-book and gone through the
relevant statements. I have heard learned APP and learned
counsel for respondent No.4 who opposed the appeal. There
are boundary disputes which exist between the appellant
No.1 and the respondent No.4. If it is the contention of
learned counsel for respondent No.4 that the appellant No.1
has encroached on the adivasi land, then it is always open
for the appropriate authorities or for the affected persons to
initiate proceedings under the relevant provisions of law for
the restoration of the land in question. However, the
materials reveal that there are boundary disputes between
the appellant No.1 and respondent No.4. The statements of
the Land Survey officials came to be recorded however, in
such statements there is no reference to the abuses in the
PMB 23.apeal.1219-23.doc
name of caste. The respondent No.4 and his acquaintances
though have mentioned that the appellant No.1 had abused
the respondent No.4 in the name of his caste, as to what
are the specific words used and whether it is in the context
of abusing in the name of caste is not clear. These are
prima facie observations. There is a delay in registering the
FIR. Though the incident is of 02.08.2023, the FIR is
registered only on 11.09.2023. The possibility of
exaggeration in view of the dispute subsisting cannot be
ruled out. I am of the opinion that the bar under Section 18
of the Atrocities Act will not apply in the facts and
circumstances of the present case. The rest of the
appellants are alleged to be present with the appellant No.1
at the time of the incident alleged to have actively
participated with the appellant No.1 in the commission of
the offence. I am inclined to confirm the interim order and
enlarge the appellant on bail. Hence, the following order :-
ORDER
(a) The Criminal Appeal is allowed.
PMB 23.apeal.1219-23.doc
(b) The impugned order dated 07.10.2023 passed by
the Additional Sessions Judge, Panvel, District Raigad
is quashed and set aside.
(c) The interim order of this Court dated 11.12.2023
is confirmed.
(d) In the event of arrest of the appellants in
connection with FIR bearing C.R. No.190 of 2023
registered with Rasayani Police Station, Taluka
Khalapur, District Raigad, the appellants - Parikshit @
Pawan Anna Chaudhari, Vijay Kashinath More, Suresh
Raghunath Deshmukh, Tejas Suresh Deshmukh and
Dattatreya Raghunath Deshmukh shall be released on
bail on their furnishing personal bond and surety bond
of Rs.25,000/- each.
(e) The appellants shall report to the office of Sub-
Divisional Police Officer as and when called and
co-operate with the investigation.
(f) Till the filing of the charge-sheet the appellants
shall not reside in the area of Savane, Taluka Panvel,
District Raigad except for the purpose of reporting to
the Investigating Officer and attending the trial.
(g) On being released on bail, the appellants shall
furnish their contact numbers and residential
addresses to the Investigating Officer and shall keep
PMB 23.apeal.1219-23.doc
him updated, in case there is any change while
residing outside the aforesaid area.
(h) The appellants 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 appellants shall not tamper with
evidence.
(i) The appellants shall attend the trial regularly.
The appellants shall co-operate with the trial Court and
shall not seek unnecessary adjournments.
(j) In view of the apprehension expressed by
learned counsel for the respondent No.4 regarding the
threat to the complainant and the witnesses by the
relatives of the appellants, it is made clear that if
there is any attempt on the part of the appellants to
threaten or intimidate the complainant and the
witnesses, the same shall be viewed seriously which
may result in cancellation of bail.
(k) It is also open for the respondent No.4 to make
an appropriate application for witness protection
to the competent authority/appropriate Court which
application shall be decided expeditiously on its own
merits.
PMB 23.apeal.1219-23.doc
6. The Criminal Appeal is disposed of.
(M. S. KARNIK, J.)
Signed by: Pradnya Bhogale
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 29/01/2024 18:35:57
