High Court · 2025
Legal Reasoning
*10* 972aba1074o25backed by any concrete material at this stage to inspireconfidence. 14.In the above facts and circumstances, the Applicantshave demonstrated a prima facie case for grant of AnticipatoryBail. Also, there is no justification coming forward from theprosecution to necessitate physical custody of the Applicantsbefore this Court. The Applicants have undertaken to fullycooperate with the investigation on any terms and conditions asthe Court would deem fit and proper to impose in the givenfactual complexion.15.Considering the above, the Anticipatory BailApplication deserves to be allowed by passing the followingorder:- ORDER(i)In the event of arrest of the Applicants inconnection with C.R. No.0395/2025 registeredwith Rahuri Police Station, Dist. Ahilyanagar forthe offences punishable under Sections 74, 115(2),118(1), 189(2), 190, 191(1), 324(4), 352, 351(2) ofthe Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and underSections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2), 3(v) ofthe Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and underSections 8 and 12 of the Protection of Childrenfrom Sexual Offences Act, 2012, the Applicants aredirected to be released on bail on furnishing PR *11* 972aba1074o25bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000 (Rupees TwentyThousand Only) each with one solvent surety inthe like amount.(ii)The Applicants shall attend the concernedPolice Station as and when required by theInvestigating Officer until the filing of the chargesheet. They are further directed to co-operate inthe investigation.(iii)The Applicants shall furnish details ofresidential address and other contact details such asthe mobile number etc. to the concerned PoliceStation. If there is any change in the contactdetails, the same shall be immediately informed tothe concerned Police Station. (iv)The Applicants shall not leave thejurisdiction of the competent Court without priorpermission of the Court subject to further orders /until filing of the charge-sheet.(v)The Applicants shall not contact and/orinfluence the witness/es and/or tamper with theevidence in any manner whatsoever. 16.The Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed inthe above terms. However, it is made clear that the observationsmade in this order are prima facie in nature for the purpose ofadjudication of this Application. kps ( ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J. )
Arguments
*1* 972aba1074o25IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1074 OF 2025PAPPU ALIAS VIJAY SHIVAJI KADAM,ABHIJIT VISHWAS KADAM,DADA @ RAMESHWAR HANSRAJ GADAKH,RUPESH RAMESH KURHE,PINU @ AJITKUMAR BAJIRAO CHAVAN,BALYA CHAHAWALA @ BALASAHEB SUBHASHKALHAPURE, AND HIRAMAN NAMDEV DHUS.VERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS...Shri Rahul R. Karpe, Advocate for the Applicants.Shri S.B. Narwade, APP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2/State.Ms.Sonawane Sunita G., Advocate for Respondent No.3/Informant... CORAM : ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J. DATE : 06 August 2025P. C. :-1.Heard Mr.Karpe, the learned Advocate for theApplicants, Mr.Narwade, the learned APP for the Respondents/State and Ms.Sonawane, the learned Advocate for RespondentNo.3/Informant. With their assistance, I have perused the FIR,the record available with the Court as also the case diary/investigation material shown to the Court. *2* 972aba1074o252.In these proceedings, the Court had, by an orderdated 2 July 2025 issued Notice to the respondents, returnableon 15 July 2025. Thereafter, the matter was listed on a fewoccasions, after which, it has come up for hearing today. Theproceedings relate to Crime No.0395/2025 registered by theRahuri Police Station, Dist. Ahilyanagar. The FIR has beenlodged on 4 April 2025 at 23.21 hours. The occurrence of thealleged offence is shown on 26 March 2025 at 22.00 hours underSections 74, 115(2), 118(1), 189(2), 190, 191(1), 324(4), 352,351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Sections3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2), 3(v) of the Scheduled Castes andScheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and underSections 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from SexualOffences Act, 2012. There are 19 persons arrayed as Accused inthe FIR, out of which, Accused Nos.3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11 and 19 arethe Applicants before the Court. Accused No.2 i.e. one SudhirTikkal has been enlarged on regular bail by the AdditionalSessions Judge, Ahmednagar, by an order dated 30 July 2025.The Accused Nos.16 and 17 have been protected by the learnedAdditional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, vide order dated 31 July2025. *3* 972aba1074o253.Briefly, from the FIR, it appears that on 26 March2025, a commotion took place in the said village. Thereafter, theApplicants have gathered in front of the house of the Informantand pelted stones. The Applicants outraged the modesty of theInformant and further assaulted her with a stick on her righthand. The Applicants have also outraged the modesty of thedaughter of the Informant and damaged the household utensils,vehicles owned by the Informant. The Applicants have alsoabused the Informant based on her caste and in the saidincidence, somebody has stolen the amount laying on the electricboard in the house of the Informant. It is also alleged that theApplicants forcibly snatched the golden ring worn by theInformant.4.At the outset, as submitted by Mr.Karpe, it would berelevant to refer to the complaint lodged on the same date i.e. 26March 2025 at the night of 9:20 hours by the Informant oneSatyajit Chandrashekhar Kadam. The Accused No.2 in the saidFIR, happens to be the son of the Informant in the FIR lodged inthe present proceedings. When the Informant in that FIR i.e. oneSatyajit Chandrashekhar Kadam tried to intervene in the dispute,there was an assault with deadly weapon on the head of the said *4* 972aba1074o25Informant. As a counter blast to the said FIR, Mr.Karpe wouldurge that the present complaint is lodged on the same date i.e. 26March 2025 at night at 10:00 hours. However, the FIR reportingthe said complaint is lodged on 4 April 2025 at 23:21 hours afterunexplained inordinate delay of about 9 days. 5.As far as the allegations against the presentApplicants in the FIR in the present proceedings are concerned, itis to be noted that the names of the 19 Accused persons havebeen spelt out in the present FIR. There is apparently no specificrole attributed to the present Applicants so as to constitute anyspecific alleged offences as stated in the FIR. 6.Mr.Karpe would urge that the present FIR wouldindicate that the specific role is attributed to the Accused Nos.1and 2, who used sticks to assault the Informant on her right handas also allegedly assaulted the minor daughter of the Informant.As far as the presence of the other Applicants / Accused personson the spot of the incident is concerned, there is evidently aninconsistency in what is disclosed in the FIR. This is inasmuch asthe Applicants were absent at the spot even as revealed by thepanchnama prepared by the investigating agency. From theCCTV footage installed at the Primary Health Centre (Hospital), *5* 972aba1074o25it appears in the said panchnama, which is transcribed from 21:26to 22:24 pm, that the persons whose names are mentioned in thesaid panchnama are seen at such place and not at the spot wherethe alleged incidence took place. The Trial Court has alsorecorded a specific finding to the effect that from the panchnamaprepared at the behest of the prosecution, the Applicants were notpresent at the spot of the incident.7.It also appears from the case diary furnished by thelearned APP that the mobile location from the pen drivepanchnama dated 16 April 2025 would indicate that theApplicants / Accused persons were not on the spot of incident,but were at the Omkar Hospital where the said Satyajit Kadam,i.e. the Informant in the previous complaints/FIR was admitted.Thus, there is an inconsistency with regard to the very presenceof the Applicants on the spot of the alleged incidence as noted inthe FIR. In fact, the statement recorded during the investigationof one of the witnesses would also corroborate the fact that theAccused persons in the present FIR were at the Omkar Hospitalat Rahuri Sugar Factory, which is at a distance of about 7 to 8kms. from the spot of the alleged incident. Thus, clearly a benefitof doubt ought to be given to the Applicants in such facts and *6* 972aba1074o25circumstances. There are statements also relied on by theprosecution to support the informant which appear to clearlyconflicting with the other witness statements in this regard. Thistherefore has to be tested during trial and not at the preliminarystage of these proceedings. 8.As far as the injuries inflicted on the Informant areconcerned, the injury certificate of the Rural Hospital, Rahuriwhich records examination of the Informant on 27 March 2025 atabout 1:50 pm would reveal the physical assault by legs and fistson abdomen, back. No significant injury is noted and the injuriessuffered by the Informant are stated to be simple in nature. 9.It is significant to note that the Sessions Court hasreleased the Accused No.2 on regular bail by the order dated 30July 2025. Though there is an allegation that the said Accusedwas armed with a deadly weapon and that he had snatched thegolden ornament worn by the Informant, the Court observed thatthere is nothing to substantiate such allegations. There are crosscomplaints culminating in cross FIRs as noted above, which atthis stage would have some bearing in the given factual scenario.Nothing is recovered from the possession of the said AccusedNo.2. On such grounds, he was enlarged on bail. Similarly, *7* 972aba1074o25there is no allegation in particular qua the present Applicants inthese proceedings. 10.In fact, as Mr.Karpe would point out, there is somesubstance in his contention that that the Applicants in the presentproceedings, stand on a better footing. A bare perusal of the FIRwould indicate that the present Applicants have no role to play inthe alleged assault on the Informant by use of the allegedweapons which is attributed to accused Nos.1 and 2, out ofwhich, accused No.2 has been enlarged on bail, as noted above inthe said order, which would have some bearing on the presentproceedings, at this preliminary stage. As far as the allegationwith regard to outraging modesty of the informant and/or herdaughter is concerned, there appears to be no mention and/or roleof the present Applicants so as to invoke the ingredients of theoffences alleged in the FIR in that regard against the presentApplicants. It is also to be noted that there is no material in theFIR and/or that produced by the prosecution which would evenremotely connect the Applicants with the allegations underSections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act, which are being invoked inthe FIR qua the present Applicants. In fact, the prosecutionthrough learned APP draws attention of the Court to the *8* 972aba1074o25statement of the victim recorded on 2 May 2025 which also doesnot make any reference to the present Applicants / Accusedpersons in any manner, which reinforces that the allegations inthe FIR do not specifically point at these Applicants but arevague and omnibus. 11.Mr. Narwade would take serious objection to thegrant of any relief to the Applicants inasmuch as the provisionsunder Sections 3(1), (r), (s), (w), 3(2) and 3(4) of the ScheduledCastes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989(for short, ‘The Atrocities Act’) are invoked against theApplicants /Accused. In this regard, he would submit that there isclear bar under the provisions under Section 18 of the AtrocitiesAct in regard to applicability of Section 438 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure/ Section 482 of the BNSS in a case involvingarrest of any person on accusation of an offence committed underthis Act. 12.However in the above context, there is substance inthe submission of Mr. Karpe that the said Section 18 referred toby Mr. Narwade would have no application at all in the givenfacts and circumstances. Even if there is an allegation in the FIRwith regard to some casteist words used, the usage of such *9* 972aba1074o25words/ remarks is in chorus, which cannot be attributed to theApplicants in any manner whatsoever, also, considering the factthat their very presence at the spot of the alleged incidence isvery much shrouded under doubt. There is nothing in the FIR toindicate even prima facie that the accused persons/ presentApplicants were aware about the social status of the Informantbelonging to a lower caste. In the absence of such specificassertion and/or allegation, no offence resulting in insult and/orhumiliation against the alleged caste, can be made out, so as toattract the punishment under provisions of Section 3 and thereby,the provisions of Section 18 of the Atrocities Act.13.Mr. Karpe in support of his submissions, has reliedon certain decisions including those of our Court in this regard,which are not referred to in detail at this stage as there would beno quarrel on the principles. Mr. Karpe has prima faciedemonstrated that in the given factual matrix as noted above, theprovisions of the Atrocities Act constituting offences qua theApplicants are apparently not made out. Ms. Sonawane, learnedAdvocate for the Informant would support and adopt thesubmissions of the Ld APP. Her contentions on the incorrecttimings recorded in the FIR appear to be based on hearsay, not