Bombay High Court
Pramod Natthuji Ladole And Another vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps ... on 4 October, 2024
2024:BHC-NAG:11262
1 68appeal188.2024.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 188 OF 2024
APPELLANTS: 1. Pramod s/o Natthuji Ladole,
Aged 48 years, Occu: Farmer.
2. Shrikrushna s/o Shriram Khedkar,
Aged 45 years, Occu: Farmer.
Both r/o Pandhari Khanmpur,
Tah. Anjangaon Surji, District Amravati.
...V E R S U S...
RESPONDENTS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through
its Police Station Officer, Police Station,
Anjangaon Surji,
District Amravati - Gramin.
2. Ravindra s/o Ramrao Raibole,
Age about 58 years, Occu: Farmer,
R/o Pandhari Khanmpur,
Tah. Anjangaon Surji, District Amravati.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Sumit B Gandhe, counsel for the appellants.
Mrs. Sneha Dhote, APP for respondent/State.
Mr.Amol G. Hunge, counsel (appointed) for respondent No.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
DATE : 04/10/2024
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of learned
counsel appearing for the parties.
2. The appellants are seeking anticipatory bail in
2 68appeal188.2024.odt
connection with Crime No. 147/2024 registered with Police
Station Anjangaon Surji for the offences punishable under
Sections 143, 147, 294 and 506 read with Section 149 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 3(2)(va), 3(1)(r),
3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short 'the Atrocities Act'). The
appellants have approached the Special Court for grant of bail
by filing the Criminal Bail Application No.100/2024, which was
rejected by the Special Court, Achalpur, hence this appeal.
3. The crime is registered on the basis of a report
lodged by the Ravindra Ramrao Raibole, on an allegation that
on 29/02/2024 there was a monthly Gram Sabha at Gram
Panchayat Pandhri. When the said Gram Sabha was in progress,
at that time, there was a discussion on the subject of the entry
door in the name of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar. At the relevant
time, some members have opposed the said proposal, and
during that meeting, he was abused by the present appellants
and the other co-accused, and he was abused by abusing his
caste. On the basis of said report, police have registered the
crime against the present appellants.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted
that, from the recitals of the FIR it reveals that a general
allegation is made against the present appellants and another
co-accused, and it is the allegation in a chorus. He submitted
that, even accepting the allegation as it is, no offence is made
out against the present appellants. He also invited my attention
3 68appeal188.2024.odt
towards various statements who were present in the meeting
and submitted that some of the witnesses stated that an alleged
incident had taken place and some of the witnesses stated that
no such incident had taken place. The statements of the Chaya
Satish Abhyankar and Sudhir Parshramji Yaul were recorded.
Sudhir Parshuramji Yaul, who was serving as a Gram Vikas
Officer in the said Gram Panchayat, has not stated anything
about the said incident. Thus, he submitted that whether such
type of incident was occurred or not is in question. Considering
the inconsistent statements of the witnesses, no prima-facie
case is made out against the present appellants.
5. In support of his contention, he placed reliance in
the case of Vijaymala and Ors. v The State of Maharashtra and
Ors. [2020 ALL MR (Cri) 1835] , wherein the Co-ordinate Bench
at Aurangabad by referring the judgment of Shashikant
Ramhari Tambe and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra [2008 ALL MR
(Cri.) 2132]; and in Mukesh Kumar Saini v. State (Delhi
Administration) [MANU/DE/0745/2001] , wherein it is
observed that there were no specific accusations against each of
the accused and Section 34 of IPC cannot be pressed into
service. Omnibus statement that all the accused persons uttered
allegedly humiliating words may not be enough. In that case
also, on the basis of those observations, when allegations were
that all the accused had made abuses and there was no specific
accusation against each of the accused, anticipatory bail was
granted when the offence was under the Atrocities Act.
4 68appeal188.2024.odt
6. He submitted that, considering the omnibus
statement made by the witnesses against the present appellants
and all other co-accused, no prima facie case is made out. In
view of that, the bar under Section 18 of the Atrocities Act is
not attracted, and therefore, interim protection granted to the
present appellants deserves to be confirmed.
7. The learned APP and learned counsel for the
informant strongly opposed the said appeal on the ground that
the statements of the independent witnesses who were present
in the said Gram Sambha specifically stated regarding the role
of the present appellants. In view of that, the bar under Section
18 of Atrocities Act is attracted, and therefore, the application
for grant of bail is rightly rejected by the Special Court, and no
interference is called for.
8. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants and
learned APP as well as counsel for the informant, perused the
investigation papers from which it reveals that during the Gram
Sabha, the alleged incident has occurred on account of passing
of resolution regarding the entry door in the name of
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar. The statements of the witnesses are
recorded, from which it reveals that some of the witnesses have
supported that such type of incident has occurred, whereas
some of the witnesses have not stated anything regarding such
type of incident. Sudhir Parsharamji Yaul, who was serving as a
Gram Vikas Adhikari at the relevant time was also present in
the said meeting. He has not uttered a single word regarding
5 68appeal188.2024.odt
the occurrence of said incident. Thus, considering inconsistent
statements of the witnesses, whether the said incident was
occurred or not itself is in doubt.
9. This court in the case of Vijaymala and Ors. v The
State of Maharashtra and ors (supra), the Co-ordinate Bench in
para No.10 observed that in view of the observations in various
judgments, it could not have been in a chorus, and the
appellant can be given benefit of the decisions in view of
Shashikant Tambe's case as well as Sugriv Garde's case. It is
further observed that where the abuses are in chorus prima
facie will have to be observed that the offences under the
Atrocities Act are not made out against the appellants.
10. Thus, considering the observations and considering
the facts of the present case, the allegation is that there were
abuses in chores by all the appellants and other co-accused.
Thus, considering the same, the bar under Section 18 of the
Atrocities Act is not attracted. In view of that, interim
protection granted to the appellants deserves to be confirmed.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order;
a] The appeal is allowed.
b] The order passed by Special Court, Achalpur
in criminal bail application No. 100/2024 is
hereby quashed and set aside.
c] The appellants shall be released on
anticipatory bail, in connection with Crime
6 68appeal188.2024.odt
No.147/2024 registered with Police Station
Anjangaon Surji for the offence punishable
under Sections 143, 147, 294 and 506 read
with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860; and under Section 3(2)(va), 3(1)(r),
3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
on executing P.R. bond in the sum of
Rs.25,000/- each with one solvent surety in
the like amount.
d] The appellants shall attend the concerned
police station as and when required for the
investigation purpose and shall co-operate
with the investigating agency.
e] The appellants shall not directly or indirectly
make any inducement and threat or promise
to any person acquainted with the facts of the
present case.
f] The fees of the appointed counsel be
quantified as per Rule.
The criminal appeal is disposed of
accordingly.
[URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.]
Signed by: Mr. R.K. NANDURKAR
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 09/10/2024 17:44:04
