Bombay High Court
Ramdas Murlidhar Medankar And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 5 March, 2024
Author: M. S. Karnik
Bench: M. S. Karnik
2024:BHC-AS:10665
Darshan Patil 911-apeal-676-19.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 676 OF 2019
1] RAMDAS MURLIDHAR MEDANKAR
2] SANKET RAMDAS MEDANKAR ..APPELLANTS
VS.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. ..RESPONDENTS
------------
Adv. Suyash N. Khose a/w Adv. Vipul E. Gunjal for the
Appellants.
Adv. Yashpal Thaker for Respondent No.2.
Mr. S.H. Yadav, APP for the State.
C.R. Markhande, PSI, Police Station Chakan.
------------
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J.
DATE : MARCH 05, 2024
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned
counsel for respondent No.2 and learned APP for the State.
2. By this appeal, the appellants challenge the order dated
23/04/2019 passed by the trial Court rejecting the
application for pre-arrest bail and pray that they be enlarged
on bail in connection with the First Information Report
bearing C.R. No. 470/2019 dated 13/03/2019 registered with
Chakan Police Station, Pune for the offence punishable under
Darshan Patil 911-apeal-676-19.docx
Sections 420, 323, 504, 506, 509 of the Indian Penal Code
and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(iv)(j) of the Scheduled Castes
and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
("Atrocities Act" for short).
3. It is submitted that during the pendency of this appeal,
appellant No.1 died. It is the case of the prosecution that the
complainant obtained contract of collection of garbage from
Grampanchayat Medankarwadi for the period between
01/05/2018 to 31/07/2018. For this work, the complainant
was to get an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- from the said
Grampanchayat. Appellant No.1's daughter Priyanka Ramdas
Medankar was the Sarpanch of the Grampanchayat.
Appellant No.1 under the pretext that the said contract would
be continued in favour of the complainant, collected a sum of
Rs.7,20,000/- from the complainant and assured her that the
said amount would be repaid within a reasonable time. The
complainant's contract was discontinued and therefore, she
demanded the said amount of Rs.7,20,000/- from the
appellant No.1. The complainant was threatened by appellant
No.1 from time to time when asked for the refund. Appellant
Darshan Patil 911-apeal-676-19.docx
No.1 was not willing to repay the said amount. So far as
appellant No.2 is concerned, the only allegation against him
is that on 07/03/2019 at about 9.00 p.m. when the
complainant and her husband were proceeding near Vijay Oil
Mill, appellant No.2 used abusive words against them. It is
further alleged that appellant No.2 assaulted the complainant
and her husband with a wooden log.
4. Learned APP as well as learned counsel for respondent
No.2 opposed the appeal.
5. The allegations are mainly against appellant No.1.
There are no specific allegations about the nature of the
abuse used in the name of the caste by the appellant No.2.
There are no witnesses to the said incident. The complainant
and her husband have suffered simple injuries. I am informed
that the charge-sheet is filed. Considering the nature of the
allegations, in the facts and circumstances of the present
case, prima facie, the bar under Section 18 of the Atrocities
Act will not apply. I am inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to
appellant No.2.
6. My attention is invited to the order dated 27/01/2020
Darshan Patil 911-apeal-676-19.docx
passed by this Court in Interim Application No. 1 of 2019. It
is stated that the appellants have deposited without prejudice
a sum of Rs.6,20,000/- as mentioned in the charge-sheet in
this Court. The said amount so deposited along with accrued
interest thereon to be transferred to the trial Court. It is open
for the complainant to make an appropriate application to the
trial Court to withdraw the said amount which application
shall be considered on its own merits and in accordance with
law.
7. One aspect needs to be noticed. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court while remitting this matter by the order dated
19/04/2021 had observed that the original complainant was
afforded police protection and one of the submissions
advanced by the complainant was that such police protection
be continued. The Hon'ble Supreme Court left this issue to
the concerned authorities to consider and to be done purely
on merits. Needless to mention, it is always open for the
complainant to apply to the concerned authorities for police
protection, which application shall be considered on its own
merits and in accordance with law.
Darshan Patil 911-apeal-676-19.docx
8. In this view of the matter, the appeal is allowed. The
interim order stands confirmed.
9. In the event of the arrest of appellant No.2 - Sanket
Ramdas Medankar in connection with C.R. No.470 of 2019
registered with Chakan Police Station, he shall be released on
bail on his furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or
more sureties in the like amount.
10. Appellant No.2 to cooperate with the investigation and
the trial Court.
11. Appellant No.2 shall attend the trial regularly and shall
not seek unnecessary adjournments.
12. The appellant shall not threaten or intimidate the
complainant and shall not tamper with evidence.
13. 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 hereinabove.
14. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
(M. S. KARNIK, J.)
Signed by: Darshan Patil
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 05/03/2024 19:32:24
