High Court

Legal Reasoning

1 43-CrAl-379-25.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 379 OF 20251.Prasad Ramesh Renukar,2.Vishal @ Dattatraya Jagdish Renukar,Both Age 39 years, Occu. Worshiper,R/o. Rashin, Taluka Karjat, District Ahmednagar..AppellantsVersus1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Police Inspector,Karjat Police Station, Taluka Karjat, District Ahmednagar2.Seema Upendra Sangale,Age 49 years, Occu. Household,R/o. Alsunde Road, Shikshak Colony, RashinTaluka Karjat, District Ahmednagar..RespondentsMs. Suvarna M. Zaware, Advocate for Appellants;Mr. R. B. Dhaware, APP for Respondent No.1;Prashant R. Nangare, Advocate for Respondent No.2CORAM: KISHORE C. SANT, J.DATE: 07-07-2025PER COURT:-1.Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the learnedA.P.P. for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel for respondentNo.2.2.This appeal is filed challenging an order passed by thelearned Additional Sessions Judge, Shrigonda, DistrictAhmednagar, below Exhibit-1 in Criminal (Bail) MiscellaneousApplication No.349 of 2025, dated 17.05.2025. 2 43-CrAl-379-25.odt3.Learned Additional Sessions Judge, by way of impugnedorder, rejected the application of the appellants seeking bail in theevent of their arrest in connection with Crime No.0263 of 2025registered with Karjat Police Station, District Ahilyanagar, dated28.04.2025.4.It is case of the prosecution that the informant/respondentNo.2 lodged FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2),352, 351(2), 351(3), 3(5) and 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023 and Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) ofthe Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention ofAtrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, “Atrocities Act”).5.It is alleged by the informant that her daughter-in-lawAishwarya who belongs to upper caste married to her son and thesame is not liked by the parents and the relatives of Aishwarya.On that count, there was already a complaint filed on 07.05.2024by Aishwarya. Present appellant No.1 was also accused in the saidcase. He was granted bail in the event of arrest by the learnedAdditional Sessions Judge. On 01.04.2024 Aishwarya lost herfather, namely, Subhash Bhagvant Renukar. To pay respect, theinformant went to the house of deceased Subhash. There, presentappellants who happen to be the cousin of Aishwarya abused theinformant in the name of caste. They abused saying that theinformant belongs to lower caste still her son enticed their sister 3 43-CrAl-379-25.odtand got married to her. It is further alleged that they assaulted theinformant. On that, FIR came to be lodged with the police. Theappellants, apprehending their arrest, approached before theSessions Court, where their application came to be rejected.Hence, the appellants are before this Court.6.Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued thatthe allegations are general in nature. It is not stated as to whichappellant exactly abused in the name of caste. It is only statedthat they abused in filthy language and there was an assault. Shefurther submits that the incident took place in the house of thedeceased and therefore, sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of theAtrocities Act are not attracted. So far as other offences underother sections are concerned, no ingredients are made out.Offences under B.N.S. Act are bailable. She submits that thelearned Sessions Judge, however, failed to appreciate the materialon record and rejected the bail application.7.Learned A.P.P. for respondent No.1 submits that theallegations are serious. There are statements of two other persons;one is of wife of the deceased and another is of Aishwarya herself.They stated that the informant was abused in the name of casteand thereafter, she was slapped by present appellant No.1 and healso kick blow. There is one more statement of Prakash. LearnedA.P.P., thus, prays for rejection of appeal. 4 43-CrAl-379-25.odt8.Learned counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently opposedthe appeal. He submits that there are criminal antecedents. Sofar as appellant No.1 is concerned, he is released on bail on earlieroccasion in connection with earlier offence. He has committed theoffence when he was on bail. He prays for rejection of appeal.9.Looking to the present FIR, it is seen that there is noallegation as to which of the appellant exactly uttered the words inthe name of caste. From the FIR, what appears is that theappellants did not like the fact that their cousin sister married witha person from different caste. Other allegation is about assault.However, looking to the injury certificate produced by the learnedA.P.P. this Court finds that no external injury is seen. It is onlytrauma to right side of the chest. The statement of Shobha doesnot refer to any abuses in the name of caste. Statement ofAishwarya also does not show that there were abuses in the nameof caste. She only speak of giving slap by Prasad and one kickblow. The statement of Prakash shows that the incident happenedin the house. He also does not refer to any abuse in the name ofcaste.10.Considering the above and specific FIR, this Court finds thatno offence is made out attracting the ingredients of the offenceunder the Atrocities Act. Though the name of caste is taken, 5 43-CrAl-379-25.odthowever, in the context it is seen that because of only fact that theappellants did not like their sister married to a person from thelower caste. The other offences are bailable offences. The learnedSessions Judge has mainly considered that there is utterance inthe name of caste. That clear utterance without any insult orhumiliation in the name of caste does not attract Sections 3(1)(r)and 3(1)(s) of the Atrocities Act.11.So far as allegation that criminal antecedents are concerned,it is not the case that the appellant at his own threatened theother witnesses or contacted the witnesses. The incident, as perallegation, occurred where the informant herself had been to thehouse of the appellants. As such, this Court finds that noingredients are made out constituting the offence under theAtrocities Act, prima facie. Considering the above, this Court isinclined to allow the appeal. Hence, the order:-ORDERi)The criminal appeal is allowed.ii)The impugned order passed by the learned AdditionalSessions Judge, Shrigonda, District Ahmednagar, belowExhibit-1 in Criminal (Bail) Miscellaneous Application No.349of 2025, dated 17.05.2025, is quashed and set aside. 6 43-CrAl-379-25.odtiii)The appellants be released on bail in the event of theirarrest in connection with Crime No.0263 of 2025 registeredwith Karjat Police Station, District Ahilyanagar dated28.04.2025, for the offences punishable under Sections115(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3), 3(5) and 79 of the BharatiyaNyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii),3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and theScheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, onfurnishing PR bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- [Rupees TwentyFive Thousand Only] each, with one solvent surety in the likeamount on the following conditions:(a)They shall not enter in village Rashin, Taluka Karjat,District Ahmednagar, till filing of the charge-sheet.(b)They shall give their contact details, such as, addressand mobile numbers to the concerned InvestigatingOfficer;(c)They shall not contact the informant and any of thewitnesses;(d)They shall attend the police station as and when calledby the Investigating Officer. [KISHORE C. SANT] JUDGErrd