High Court
Legal Reasoning
569-23 CRIAPEAL (+1)5 complaint, the words used by applicants – accused humiliatingthe caste are absent. Prima facie, there does not appear anyfurther atrocious words used” . Then by relying on ShantabaiVs. State of Maharashtra reported in 1982 Cr.L.J. 872, it isheld that, “merely calling a person by his caste though maynot amount to insult or abuse him, it cannot be said to be withintent to humiliate such person within public view”. The TrialCourt has also noted the fact that allegations are that AnandAlankar and other accused threatened informant by usingabusive language in the name of the caste, and they arealready arrested and recovery of weapon is effected. The TrialCourt therefore has rightly held that bar under Section 18 of ofScheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention ofAtrocities) Act is not attracted to the accused persons who areseeking anticipatory bail.9.Admittedly, there is a dispute in respect ofpartnership in the country liquor shop between informant’sfamily and the accused, as 70% of share in the said shop ispurchased by Anand Alankar. Assault by hammer is attributedto Anand Alankar. Perusal of injury certificate of informantshows that he has suffered blunt trauma on left knee, which isa simple injury. A hammer is already recovered, so also the5 of 8 569-23 CRIAPEAL (+1)6 CCTV footage of the alleged incident. Charge-sheet in thepresent crime is filed on 06.08.2023.10.It is settled law that, “bail once granted can berevoked where the Court has considered irrelevant factors orhas ignored relevant material available on record whichrendered the order granting bail legally untenable. The gravityof the offence, conduct of accused and social impact of undueindulgence by Curt when the investigation is at the thresholdare also amongst a situations, where a Superior Court caninterfere in an order of bail to prevent the miscarriage ofjustice and to bolster the administration of criminal justicesystem” as is observed by the Apex Court in Criminal AppealNo.1161 and 1162 of 2021. 11.In Deepak Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh andanother, (2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 559, it is held :“This Court has reiterated in several instances thatbail once granted should not be cancelled in amechanical manner without considering whether anysupervening circumstances have rendered it notlonger conducive to a fair trial to allow the accusedto retain his freedom by enjoying the concession ofbail during trial. Having said that, in case ofcancellation of bail, very cogent and overwhelmingcircumstances are necessary for an order directingcancellation of bail (which was already granted).”6 of 8 569-23 CRIAPEAL (+1)7 12.In Daulat Ram and others Vs. State of Haryana,(1195) 1 SCC 349, it is observed :“…… Very cogent and overwhelming circumstancesare necessary for an order directing the cancellationof bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are :interference or attempt to interfere with the duecourse of adminstration of Justice or evasion orattempt to evade the due course of justice or abuseof the concession granted to the accused in anymanner. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis ofmaterial placed on the record of the possibility of theaccused absconding is yet another reason justifyingthe cancellation of bail. However, bail once grantedshould not be cancelled in any superveningcircumstances have rendered it no longer conduciveto a fair trial to allow the accused to retain hisfreedom by enjoying the concession of bail duringthe trial.” 13.In the light of aforesaid settled legal principles, nocase is made out by appellant to cancel the anticipatory bailand regular bail granted in favour of accused persons. 14.In Hariram Bhambhi (supra), the Apex Court setaside the bail order granted by the High Court on the groundthat, relevant factors for grant of bail, which are“ (I) theseriousness and gravity of the offence; and (ii) the roleattributed to the first respondent in the commission of the7 of 8 569-23 CRIAPEAL (+1)8 crime. In this backdrop, the order of the High Court ingranting bail cannot pass muster.”15.In case in hand, the Trial Court has passed a wellreasoned order while granting anticipatory bail and sincecharge-sheet is already filed and no superveningcircumstances are brought on record, no case is made out byappellant to cancel the bail of respondents - accused.Therefore, this decision is of no help to the case of appellant. 16.For the aforestated reasons, there is no merit in theappeals and both the appeals are therefore dismissed. [ NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI ] JUDGE S.P. Rane8 of 8
Arguments
569-23 CRIAPEAL (+1)1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPEAL NO.569 OF 2023Aanant S/o Bharatrao Ghodke… AppellantVERSUS1. The State of Maharashtra2. Anand S/o Bhairu Alankar3. Vikrant @ Vicky S/o Vijaykumar Navale… RespondentsWITHCRIMINAL APPEAL NO.570 OF 2023Aanant S/o Bharatrao Ghodke… AppellantVERSUS1. The State of Maharashtra2. Yashwant S/o Gopalrao Machale3. Samadhan Devidas Kadam-Parmeshwar4. Dinesh S/o Deepak @ Deepakrao Kadam-Parmeshwar… Respondents ......Mr. Amol T. Jagtap, Advocate for the AppellantMr. S.B. Jadhav, APP for Respondent – StateMs. Tanvi Jadhav for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 inCRI.APPEAL/569/2023 and for Respondent Nos.2 to 4 inCRI.APPEAL/570/2023...... [CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.] RESERVED ON : 01.02.2024PRONOUNCED ON : 06.02.2024ORDER :1.These appeals challenge orders dated 24.04.2023passed by learned Special Judge, Osmanabad in Criminal BailApplication No.193 of 2023 and Criminal Anticipatory BailApplication No.180 of 2023.1 of 8 569-23 CRIAPEAL (+1)2 2.Informant lodged FIR from the Civil Hospital allegingthat he resides in the joint family with his mother, wife,brother Amol and sister-in-law. In the country liquor shop atGopalnagar, Latur Road, Tuljapur, Yashwant Gopalrao Machale,Vidyanagar, Beed and informant’s mother Sharda BharatraoGhodke are 70% and 30% partners respectively. Informant isrunning the shop. On 02.04.2023, while informant and hisfamily members were at home, at 8.30 p.m., Aanant BhairuAlankar, his father Bhairu Aalankar, their father-in-lawVijaykumar Navale came to their house. Anand Alankar toldthat he has purchased 70% share in the shop from YashwantMachale, therefore, his mother’s consent is necessary and hersignature is required on consent letter and partnership deed.His mother refuses to sign on the consent letter andpartnership deed. Therefore, they have left the house. On05.04.2023, accused persons assaulted informant and and hisbrother Amol as his mother refuses to sign the consent letterand partnership deed. Informant and his brother Amol wereassaulted by Anand Alankar with hammer, Vikrant @ VickyVijaykumar Navale, Samadhan Devidasrao Kadam-Parmeshwar, Dinesh Dipak Kadam-Parmeshwar and othersassaulted informant and his brother with fist and kick blows.Anand gave iron rod blow on the back and near the left knee2 of 8 569-23 CRIAPEAL (+1)3 of informant. They also called the name of his caste.Samadhan Kadam pushed him in the channel near the shop. 3.Accused Anand Alankar and Vikrant @ VickyVijaykumar Navale were arrested and they preferred criminalbail application no. 193 of 2023 for regular bail. Theirapplication is allowed by the Trial Court.Accused Yashwant Machale, Samadhan DevidasKadam-Parmeshwar, Dinesh Dipak @ Dipakrao Kadam-Parmeshwar preferred anticipatory bail application no.180 of2023, which is allowed by the Trial Court. Both these appealsimpugn the regular bail and anticipatory bail orders. 4.Heard learned advocate for appellant, learnedadvocate for respondents – accused and learned APP for State.Perused the investigation papers. 5.Learned advocate for appellant has assailed the orderof anticipatory bail contending that in view of bar undersection 18 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the Trial Court erred ingranting anticipatory bail. Accused are habitual offenders asthey are accused in charge-sheet filed in R.C.C. No.35 of2020. As investigation is in progress, in the present crime,3 of 8 569-23 CRIAPEAL (+1)4 custody of the applicant is necessary. Accused have committedserious offence and there is eye witnesses of the incident, andthere is also CCTV footage of the incident.Challenging the regular bail order, he submits thataccused are habitual offenders and they should not have beenreleased on regular bail. Bail is granted by Sessions Court onassumptions and presumptions and though there is directinvolvement of accused in the present offence. In support ofhis submissions, he relied on the decision of Apex Court inHariram Bhambhi Vs. Satyanarayan & Anr. (Criminal AppealNo.1278 of 2021).6.Learned advocate for accused, on the other hand,supported the bail orders. 7.Learned APP has produced investigation papers andhas requested to pass appropriate orders. 8.While granting anticipatory bail to accused YashwantGopalrao Machale, Samadhan Devidas Kadam-Parmeshwarand Dinesh S/o Deepak @ Deepakrao Kadam-Parmeshwar,Trial Court has observed; “prima facie, from the bare readingof complaint, it appears that applicants – accused abused infilthy language to mother of victim, but in the entire4 of 8