High Court

Legal Reasoning

1 937.Cri.Appeal.-201-2025.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 201 OF 2025RAJKUMAR JIVRAJ JAINVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER... Advocate for Appellant : Senior Counsel Mr. V.D.Hon i/by Mr. Kawade Shrikant G. APP for Respondent No.1/State : Mr. S.M. Ganachari Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. Devakate Anant Ramahari… CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. DATE : 29th APRIL 2025PER COURT :.Appellant takes exception to judgment and order dated14.01.2025 passed below Exhibit-1 in Criminal Bail ApplicationNo.74/2024, rejecting his application for pre-arrest bail infurtherance of C.R. No.255/2024 registered with Paranda PoliceStation, Dist. Dharashiv for offences punishable under Sections118(1), 115(1), 189(2), 189(4), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 333, 324(4),76, 351(3), 352 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Sections3(1)(o), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i) of Scheduled Castes andScheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.2.The incident in question occurred on 25.11.2024 atKapilapuri, Taluka Paranda, District Dharashiv which was reported byRespondent No.2 who belongs to scheduled caste. It was aftermath 2 937.Cri.Appeal.-201-2025.doc Assembly Election’s result. Appellant with – co-accused are alleged tohave approached the Informant and abused and threatened him onthe count of casting vote against the candidate of perpetrators. It isalleged that Appellant abused the Informant on caste and assaultedby iron rod on his hand, head and back. It is further alleged thatwhen Informant’s friend Yashwant intervened, he was also abused oncaste and beaten by iron rod on his head, hand and back. It ismentioned in the F.I.R. that few people were having bottlescontaining petrol and threatening to set the house of members ofscheduled caste ablaze. 3.Learned Senior Counsel Mr. V.D. Hon for the Appellantsubmits that his client is falsely implicated in the offence. Theincident in question did not take within public view. As the Appellantwas in prestigious position, he has been targeted by registeringoffence. He would further submit that allegations are exaggerated. Itis further submitted that investigation is almost over and need forcustodial interrogation as such does not exist. 4.Learned APP Mr. Ganachari tenders on record papers ofinvestigation. He would advert my attention to the statement ofinjured witnesses namely Yashwant, Rekha, Mohini who are eye-witnesses. He has adverted my attention to their injury certificateswhich show their presence at the time of incident. He wouldvehemently rely on the statements of Avinash and Siddhesh who areindependent witnesses. The statement of witnesses are in consonance 3 937.Cri.Appeal.-201-2025.doc with prosecution theory. My attention is also adverted tosupplementary statement of the Informant recorded on 20.12.2024,to show that even the accused persons named therein were carryingbottles containing petrol. It is submitted that weapon used by theAppellant has been recovered. The spot panchanama discloses thatthe incident occurred within public view. Learned Sessions Judge isjustified in rejecting pre-arrest bail of the Appellant. 5.Learned Counsel Mr. Devakate for Respondent No.2 adoptsthe submissions of learned APP. Additionally he places on record F.I.R.of C.R. No.109/2023 registered with Madha Police Station, Solapuragainst various persons including the present Appellant to show hisantecedents and conduct. It is submitted that besides Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Prevention of Atrocities Act, allegations for offence underSection 3(1)(o) are also made. Prima facie, very strong case is madeout for the said offence as the incident took place immediately afterthe result of Assembly Election. 6.I have considered the rival submissions of the parties. I havegone through the papers of investigation carefully.7.It transpires from record that Informant, Yashwant, Rekha,Mohini are the injured eye-witnesses. Injury certificate of Yashwantdiscloses two simple injuries. The certificate of Informant showsthree simple injuries. Besides that Avinash, Siddhesh and Omkar arethe eye-witnesses. Learned APP is right in contending that as the 4 937.Cri.Appeal.-201-2025.doc witnesses are injured, therefore their presence cannot be disputedand they are required to be treated as eye-witnesses. Under normalcourse of circumstances, account given by the eye-witnesses that tooinjured one, would have been accepted. However minute perusal ofthe statements would disclose altogether different picture.8.The Informant and Yashwant are consistent that the casteistallegations were made by the Appellant only. Whereas the otherwitnesses like Avinash, Siddhesh, Omkar, Rekha and Mohini statethat the allegations on caste were hurled in chorus not only by theAppellant, but by number of other co-accused. The version of theinjured eye-witnesses and so called independent witnesses namelyAvinash, Siddhesh, Omkar, Rekha and Mohini are inconsistent withthe version of the Informant and Yashwant. The inconsistency ismaterial in nature and cannot be overlooked. The statements areshrouded with suspicious.9.The supplementary statement of the Informant wasrecorded on 20.12.2024 in which he sought to add specific names ofthe persons who were holding bottles having petrol. F.I.R. alreadydiscloses that few people were holding bottles containing petrolwhich is sought to be further clarified by the supplementarystatement. However independent eye-witnesses and injured eye-witnesses do not support this particular fact. It is incomprehensibleas to why none of them could state that few persons were carryingbottles containing petrol. This is another circumstance which creates 5 937.Cri.Appeal.-201-2025.doc doubt on the prosecution case.10.The submission of learned APP that the incident in questiontook place within public view as well as the submission of learnedCounsel Mr. Devakate that a case is made out for offence underSection 3(1)(o) of the Prevention of Atrocities Act have somesubstance. But due to the inconsistencies in the prosecution theorythat too at the instance of eye-witnesses, entire prosecution caseappears to be either exaggerated or false. This Court cannot beoblivious of the fact that immediately after declaration of the resultof the Assembly Election, the incident in question took place. In allprobabilities, the incident in question is having political overtures.Under these circumstances, the false implication of the Appellantcannot be ruled out. Considering the nature of injuries and thenature of allegations, I am of the considered view that liberty of theAppellant needs to be protected. Appellant is having an antecedent.Therefore instead of rejecting his pre-arrest protection, it would besufficient to impose strict conditions upon him.11.The above observations are prima facie in nature.12.I find that impugned judgment and order is unsustainable.I, therefore pass following order :ORDER(a)The Criminal Appeal is allowed. 6 937.Cri.Appeal.-201-2025.doc (b)The impugned judgment and order is quashed and setaside. (c)In the event of arrest of the Appellant in furtherance of C.R.No.255/2024 registered with Paranda Police Station, Dist. Dharashiv,he shall be released on bail on furnishing P. R. bond of Rs.50,000/-with one solvent surety on following conditions :(i)Appellant shall cooperate the Investigating Agency andreport the concerned Police Station on every Saturday between12:00 pm. to 05:00 pm. and also apprise the InvestigatingOfficer about his whereabouts. (ii)Save and except reporting the police station, he shall notenter prohibited area.(iii)Appellant shall stay away from entire Dharashiv andSolapur District till filing of the charge-sheet and thereafter forfurther period of four weeks.(iv)Appellant shall not contact the prosecution witnesses ortamper the prosecution witnesses. SHAILESH P. BRAHMEJUDGENAJEEB..