Bombay High Court
Gopal Ashish Ramrao Datkar vs State Of Maharashtar Thr Police Station ... on 30 June, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:6298
1 55appeal228.2025.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 228 OF 2025
APPELLANT Gopal @ Aashish Ramraoji Datkar,
Aged about 50 years, Occupation :
Agriculturist, R/o Hingani, Tah. and
District Akola.
-VERSUS-
RESPONDENTS 1. State of Maharashtra, through
Police Station Officer, Police Station, Akot,
Tq. Akot, District Akola.
2. Rajendra Amrutrao Ingale,
Aged about 53 years, Occupation:
Sub-Divisional Officer, Maharashtra
Jeevan Pradhikaran, Akot, Tq. Akot,
District Akola.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. A.R.Deshpande, counsel for appellant.
Mr. C.A. Lokhande, APP for respondent/State.
None for respondent No.2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
DATE : 30/06/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard.
rkn
2 55appeal228.2025.odt
2. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of learned
counsels appearing for the parties.
3. By preferring this appeal, the appellant has
challenged the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Akot, dated 21/04/2025, rejecting the application by passing
order below Exhibit-1 in Criminal Bail Application No. 50/2025.
4. The appellant is arraigned as an accused in
connection with Crime No.108/2025 registered with Police Station
Akot, Tq. Akot, District Akola for the offences punishable under
Sections 308(2), 351(2), and 296 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023; and Sections 3(1)(m), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989 (for short "the Act of 1989").
5. After registration of the crime, the present appellant
approached the Special Court for grant of anticipatory bail, the
same was rejected. Hence, this appeal.
6. The crime is registered on the basis of a report lodged
by one Rajendra Amrutrao Ingale, Sub-Divisional Officer,
Maharashtra Jivan Pradhikaran Akot, Sub-Division, on an
allegation that he has been in-charge of Maharashtra Jivan
rkn
3 55appeal228.2025.odt
Pradhikaran, Akot, alleging irregularities in the implementation of
the Jal Jivan Mission Scheme, covering 84 villages under his
jurisdiction. The fund of Rs. 58,00,00,000/- has been allotted for
the said Jal Jivan Mission. At some villages, the work of the said
scheme is in progress, and at some villages, it is yet to be
commenced. In that behalf, the Sarpanch and other Gram
Panchayat Members from the respective village panchayats used to
meet the informant.
7. On 31/03/2025, the informant was present in the
office and was busy with official work. At the relevant time, the
Sarpanch of the village, Dahihanda - Sanjay Athwale, came to his
cabin and inquired about various works at village Dahihanda with
the informant. At that time, he received a phone call on his cell
phone, and he was abused on the said cell phone call in filthy
language. On the basis of the said report, police have registered
the crime against the present appellant.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
after considering the entire recitals of the First Information Report
(FIR), no offence is made out under the Act of 1989, as there is no
single allegation that present appellant has abused him on his
rkn
4 55appeal228.2025.odt
caste. Therefore, the bar under Section 18 of the Act of 1989 will
not attract. He invited my attention towards recitals of the FIR as
well as the statement of the various witnesses and submitted that
even accepting the statement as it is, no offence is made out under
the Act of 1989. He further submitted that with false and baseless
allegations, the present appellant is implicated in the alleged
offence. As far as his custodial interrogation is concerned, which is
not required, in view of that, interim protection granted to the
present appellant deserves to be confirmed.
9. Learned APP strongly opposed the said application
and submitted that not only the first informant but also the various
eyewitnesses witnessed the said incident. Their statements are
recorded, which shows the involvement of the present appellant in
the alleged offence. In view of that, the bar under Section 18 of
the said Act, the application was rightly rejected by the trial Court.
In view of that, the appeal is devoid of merit and liable to be
dismissed.
10. On hearing both sides and on perusal of the entire
investigation papers, it reveals that the informant has received a
telephonic call from the present appellant, which he kept on
rkn
5 55appeal228.2025.odt
speaker mode, and it is alleged that he was abused in filthy
language by the present appellant. Moreover, I have also perused
the statement of various alleged eyewitnesses, which also endorsed
the same contention that the informant was abused on a cellphone
call when it was kept on speaker mode. Even accepting the said
contention as it is, it reveals that though there are abuses in filthy
language was used, but there are no abuses on his caste. Thus, a
prima-facie case is not made out as far as the provisions of the Act
of 1989 are concerned. Even considering the abuses, which are in
filthy language, the custodial interrogation of the present appellant
is not required, as recovery of the mobile phone can be taken care
of by imposing certain conditions on the present appellant. In view
of that, as the bar under Section 18 of the Act of 1989 will not
attract, the appeal deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed
to pass the following order.
a] Criminal appeal is allowed.
b] The order passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Akot, in Criminal Bail Application No. 50/2025
dated 21/04/2025 is hereby quashed and set aside.
c] The interim protection granted to the present
rkn
6 55appeal228.2025.odt
appellant by order dated 13/05/2025 is hereby
confirmed, subject to the condition that the appellant
shall attend the concerned police station once in a
week on Tuesday between 10.00 a.m. to 01.00 p.m.
and shall produce his mobile phone before the
investigating officer, and the same period shall be
considered as his custody for the purpose of Section
23(2) of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, and the
appellant shall cooperate with the investigating
agency in all respects.
d] The appellant shall not induce, threat or promise any
witnesses who are acquainted with the facts of the
case.
Criminal appeal is disposed of accordingly.
[URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.]
rkn
