However, it is to be noted that in case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan
(supra), it has also been held that, where no prima facie offence is made out as shown in the FIR, in order to prevent miscarriage of justice the statutory bar would not apply. It is argued that there was a trite land dispute and therefore false allegations are levelled against appellants. The appellant has produced a copy of Civil Suit bearing No. RCS No. 61/2013 filed by mother of appellant No.1 relating to the same land bearing Block No. 155.
6. Except the provisions under the Act of 1989, the other
offences are bailable. There is no specific allegation against particular accused of giving abuses in the name of caste, but a general statement has been made. Therefore, it is difficult to comprehend that all accused in chorus abused at the same time. The report does not bear reference regarding presence of any independent witnesses. Therefore applicability of provisions of SC ST Act is a matter is in dispute and requires serious consideration. Prima facie there is no material to connect appellants with
the offences punishable under Section SC ST Act. Already interim
protection has been granted vide order dated 30/07/2021. There is no
complaint about misuse of liberty. Having regard to all these facts
appellants’ liberty can be protected by putting them on certain terms.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 303 OF 2021
Sunil Janrao Padol Vs The State of Maharashtra,
CORAM : VINAY JOSHI . J .
DATE : 16/09/2021
The learned Counsel for the informant was absent on last date
as well as today. There is no purpose in keeping the matter pending for no
reason. Heard learned counsel for appellants and learned A. P. P. for
respondent no.1.
ADMIT. By consent of learned Counsel present for parties,
Appeal is taken up for final disposal
2. In anticipation of arrest in Crime No.254/2021, registered
with Police Station Dhad, District – Buldhana for the offences punishable
under Sections 294, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)s, 3(1)u, 3(1)(za)(A) of the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989, appellants are claiming prearrest
protection. The State has resisted bail by filing reply affidavit.
Moreover, informant has also filed reply in resistance coupled with certain
precedents.
3. On 09/07/2021, the informant lodged report with Police
Station regarding occurrence, stating that on that day he along with
others, entered into land bearing Block No. 155, where there was a
cremation ground. The informant states that at that time all appellants
arrived there, manhandled them and also abused in the name of caste.
Moreover, applicants have abused in filthy language and gave threats.
4. The learned Counsel appearing for appellants would submit
that the allegations levelled in First Information Report are vague. As per
informant’s contention all accused gave abuses in chorus and therefore the
same cannot be relied. Moreover, it is argued that the contents of F.I.R. do
not disclose that the offence took place ‘within public view’, meaning
thereby in a place accessible to public and in presence of independent
witnesses. This Court in reported case of Pradnya Pradeep Kenkar Vs.
State of Maharashtra, 2005 (3) Mh.L.J. 368 has taken a view that both
the above ingredients have to be satisfied for constituting the offence
punishable under the Act. Moreover it is submitted that out of land
dispute false case has been filed. Particularly it is pointed out that
appellant No.3 is aged person whilst applicant No.2 is staying elsewhere.
5. Perused the decisions relied by the informant, rendered by
Supreme Court in cases of: (1) Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd Vs. State
of Maharashtra and others reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, (2)
National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights and others Vs. Union of India
and others, reported in (2017) 2 Supreme Court Cases 432 (3) Pruthvi Raj
Chauhan Vs. Union of India reported in (2020) 4 SCC 747. There can be
no dispute about the general prepositions laid down in above referred
cases. However, it is to be noted that in case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan
(supra), it has also been held that, where no prima facie offence is made
out as shown in the FIR, in order to prevent miscarriage of justice the
statutory bar would not apply. It is argued that there was a trite land
dispute and therefore false allegations are levelled against appellants. The
appellant has produced a copy of Civil Suit bearing No. RCS No. 61/2013
filed by mother of appellant No.1 relating to the same land bearing Block
No. 155.
6. Except the provisions under the Act of 1989, the other
offences are bailable. There is no specific allegation against particular
accused of giving abuses in the name of caste, but a general statement has
been made. Therefore, it is difficult to comprehend that all accused in
chorus abused at the same time. The report does not bear reference
regarding presence of any independent witnesses. Therefore applicability
of provisions of SC ST Act is a matter is in dispute and requires serious
consideration. Prima facie there is no material to connect appellants with
the offences punishable under Section SC ST Act. Already interim
protection has been granted vide order dated 30/07/2021. There is no
complaint about misuse of liberty. Having regard to all these facts
appellants’ liberty can be protected by putting them on certain terms.
Hence the following order.
ORDER
(i) Appeal stands allowed.
(ii) Impugned order dated 20/07/2021 passed in Criminal
Bail Application 209/2021, by Additional Sessions Judge,
Buldana, is hereby quashed and set aside.
(iii) Ad-interim order dated 30/07/2021, passed by this Court
is hereby made absolute on same terms and conditions.
(iv) The appellants are directed to continue to attend the
Police Station till filing of charge-sheet or for the period of three
months from today, whichever is earlier.
JUDGE
No comments:
Post a Comment