Bombay High Court
Syed Afroz Syed Kadir vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Pso, ... on 5 March, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:2506
J.55.appeal.682.24.odt 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.682 OF 2024
Syed Afroz Syed Kadir
Age 30 Years,
Occ: Labour
R/o Shingnapur, Post Shaha,
Tq. Karanja, Distt. Washim
...APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. The State Of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer,
Police Station Karanja (Rural),
Tq. Karanja, District Washim
2. Mukesh Digambar Bhosle
Aged about 45 years,
R/o Shingnapur, Karanja Lad,
Karanja Gramin,
Distt. Washim, Maharashtra
...RESPONDENTS
_______________________________________________________
Mr. Z.Z. Haq, Advocate for the appellant.
Mrs. M.A. Barabde, APP for the State.
Ms P.S. Kaware, Advocate for respondent No.2.
_______________________________________________________
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
DATED : MARCH 5, 2025.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
ADMIT. Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel
for the parties.
2. By preferring this appeal, the appellant has challenged the
order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mangrulpir dated
12/11/2024 in Criminal Bail Application No. 183/2024 by which the
application of the present appellant for grant of anticipatory bail is
rejected.
3. The appellant is arraigned as an accused in connection with
Crime No.386/2024 for the offence punishable under Section 103(1),
189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 79, 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 and Sections 3(2)(va), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
4. The crime is registered on the basis of report lodged by
Mukesh Digambar Bhosale on an allegation that on 01/10/2024, the
present applicant and other co-accused abused and quarrelled with the
informant and his family members. On the same day at about 7:00 PM
one Shivmangal was assaulted by the present applicant, and the other
co-accused, who subsequently reported to be dead. On the basis of the
said report police have registered the crime against the present appellant
and other co-accused.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that as far as
the role of the present appellant is concerned general allegation is
levelled. In fact, he was not present at the spot of incident. He is a truck
Driver and due to his job, he was out of the town on that day. He further
submitted that omnibus allegation is levelled against the present
appellant, and therefore, the bar under Section 18-A of the Atrocities Act
will not attract. As far as the custodial interrogation is concerned which
is not required as no specific role is attributed to the present appellant,
and therefore, nothing is to be recovered from him. Other co-accused are
already released on bail. In view of that, he be released on anticipatory
bail.
6. Learned APP and learned Counsel for the informant strongly
opposed the application on the ground that present appellant and other
co-accused who have assaulted the deceased by fist and kick blows as
well as the stick was used. Said incident was witnessed by the eye-
witnesses and the injured subsequently succumbed to the death due to
the head injury. Thus, all the accused including the present appellant
caused the death of the deceased, which is caused in furtherance of the
common intention. In view of that, the appeal deserves to be rejected as
bar under Section 18-A of the Atrocities Act will attract.
7. I have heard learned Counsel for both the sides. On perusal
of the entire investigation papers it reveals that the death of the
deceased is caused due to the head injury. As per the allegations, there
was a previous dispute between the present appellant, informant and his
family members. On that count, on the day of incident, there was a
quarrel in the morning at about 8:00 AM and on the same day at about
7.00 PM the deceased Shivmangal was assaulted by the present
applicant and the other co-accused. On going through the entire
investigation papers, the specific role of the present appellant reveals as
to the assault, and therefore, in view of Section 18-A of the Atrocities Act
bar will attract.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case
and in view of the bar under Section 18-A of the Atrocities Act, the
appeal has no merits and deserves to be dismissed.
9. Hence, the appeal is hereby dismissed.
(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)
*Divya
