Bombay High Court
Ganesh Dnyaneshwar Rokade vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 30 January, 2024
Author: M. S. Karnik
Bench: M. S. Karnik
2024:BHC-AS:4415
Urmila Ingale 18-apeal-777-23.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 777 OF 2023
Ganesh Dnyaneshwar Rokade ..Appellant
VS.
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. Mangesh Uttam Gholap ..Respondents
Mr. Kedar Patil a/w Ms. Gargi Joshi, Mr. Jitesh Mundhwa, Ms.
Sakshi Kadam, Mr. Pratik Tare, for the Appellant.
Mr. Veerdhawal Deshmukh, for Respondent No.2.
Mr. S. H. Yadav, APP for the State.
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J.
DATE : JANUARY 30, 2024
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Learned APP
and learned counsel for the respondent no.2 opposed the
appeal.
2. This is an appeal for quashing and setting aside the
impugned order dated 27/06/2023 rejecting the anticipatory
bail application of the appellant passed by the trial Court in
connection with C.R. No. 231 of 2023 registered with Rajgad
police station, Pune Rural for the offences punishable under
sections 420, 467, 468, 452, 364-A, 324, 323, 504, 506 read
with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, under sections 3(1)
Urmila Ingale 18-apeal-777-23.doc
(r), 3(1)(s), & 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for
short, "the Atrocities Act"), under sections 39 & 45 of the
Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014 and
under sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act. The date of the
FIR is 28/05/2023.
3. On 14/07/2023, this Court while granting interim
protection to the appellant had passed the following order,
the relevant portion of which reads thus:
"2. By this appeal, preferred under section 14-A of
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short 'SCST Act')
the appellant seeks pre-arrest bail in connection
with C.R. No. 231 of 2023 registered with the
Rajgad Police Station, for the alleged offences
punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 452, 364-
A, 324, 323, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code;
and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the SCST
Act; Section 39 and 45 of Maharashtra Money
Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014; and Section 3 and
25 of the Arms Act.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
admittedly there are no allegations either of assault
or of kidnapping for ransom, against the appellant,
with respect to the alleged incident dated 20 th
November 2019. He submits that the said
allegations are as against Sushil Rokade, the
appellant's brother and not against the appellant.
He further submits that as far as Sushil Rokade is
concerned, he is arrested and he is in custody
presently. He further submits that all documents
have also been seized by the police, from Sushil. He
submits that the appellant has been falsely
implicated in the said case, only because he is the
Urmila Ingale 18-apeal-777-23.doc
brother of Sushil, with whom respondent no. 2 had
financial transactions.
4. He submits as far as allegations under the SCST
Act are concerned, no allegations have been made
as against the appellant i.e. the appellant used any
abusive words/language with respect to respondent
no. 2's caste.
5. Issue notice to respondents returnable on 1
August 2023. Learned APP waives notice and seeks
time to take instructions. In addition to Court
notice, appellant to serve the respondent No.2, by
private notice and file affidavit of service before the
next dare.
6. Learned APP also assures to inform the
respondent No.2 through the concerned Officer of
the concerned police station of the returnable date.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant,
the appellant has prima facie case made out a for
grant of interim protection. As far as allegations
under section SCST Act are concerned, prima facie
the said allegations are not attributed to the
appellant, and hence the bar under the SCST Act
will not apply. Accordingly, in the meantime, till the
next date, the appellant is granted interim
protection from arrest, on the following terms and
conditions."
4. I have heard learned APP and learned counsel
appointed to represent the respondent no.2. Learned APP
and learned counsel for the respondent no.2 opposed the
appeal and submitted that the offence is serious and the bar
under section 18 of the Atrocities Act is attracted in the
present case. It is further submitted that the appellant is
actively involved in the commission of the offences and he
has been specifically named in FIR. It is therefore submitted
Urmila Ingale 18-apeal-777-23.doc
that the appeal be dismissed and the order passed by the
trial Court may be confirmed.
5. I have carefully perused the allegations made by the
complainant. So far as the allegations under the Atrocities
Act are concerned, prima facie it appears that the said
allegations are not attributed to the appellant and hence,
the bar under section 18 of the Atrocities Act will not apply.
There are no allegations either of assault or of kidnapping
for ransom against the present appellant with respect to the
incident dated 20/11/2019. The allegations are mainly
against Sushil Rokade who is the real brother of the
appellant. Sushil Rokade is arrested and he is in custody
presently. All documents have been seized by the police
from Sushil. It is the contention of the learned counsel for
the appellant that the appellant is falsely implicated only
because he happens to be the brother of the main accused-
Sushil Rokade with whom the complainant- respondent no.2
has financial transactions.
6. Learned APP submitted on instructions of the
investigating officer that the charge-sheet has already been
filed. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, the interim
Urmila Ingale 18-apeal-777-23.doc
protection can be confirmed and accordingly it is confirmed.
Hence, the following order :-
ORDER
(a) The appeal is allowed.
(b) The impugned order dated 27/06/2023
passed by the trial Court is quashed and set aside.
(c) In the event of arrest in connection with C.R.No.
231 of 2023 registered with Rajgad police station,
Pune Rural, the appellant-Ganesh Dnyaneshwar
Rokade shall be enlarged on bail on his furnishing P.R.
bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/-with one or two sureties
of the like amount.
(d) 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.
(e)The appellant shall attend the trial regularly.
6. I appreciate the valuable assistance rendered by Mr.
Veerdhawal Deshmukh, the learned Advocate, who
appeared on behalf of respondent No.2 at my request in this
proceeding and assisted the Court. His engagement be
regularized by the Legal Services Authority.
7. The appeal is disposed of.
(M. S. KARNIK, J.)
Signed by: Urmila P. Ingale
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 30/01/2024 18:41:09
