State.Shri P v. Tapse Patil
Facts
*1* 500.25apeal etc.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 500 OF 20251.Nitin s/o Baliram Gatkal2.Baliram s/o Nivrutti Gatkal3.Vishal s/o Ghansham Duche ... .APPELLANTSVERSUS1.The State of Maharashtra,Through its Investigation Officer,Ambi Police Station, Tq. Bhoom,Dist. Osmanabad (Dharashiv)2.The Superintendent of Police,Osmanabad (Dharashiv)3.X.Y.Z. ….RESPONDENTS...Shri N. B. Narwade, Advocate for the AppellantsShri Sunil B. Jadhav, APP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2/ State.Shri P. V. Tapse Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.3WITHCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 513 OF 2025Dinesh s/o Vaijinath Bahirmal….APPELLANTVERSUS1.The State of Maharashtra,Through its Investigation Officer,Ambi Police Station, Tq. Bhoom,Dist. Osmanabad (Dharashiv)2.The Superintendent of Police,Osmanabad (Dharashiv)3.X.Y.Z. ….RESPONDENTS...Shri S. A. Nagarsoge, Advocate for the AppellantShri Sunil B. Jadhav, APP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2/ State.Shri P. V. Tapse Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.3 *2* 500.25apeal etc.odt CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. DATE : 15th September, 2025P. C. :-1.By Criminal Appeal No.500/2025, the appellants arepraying for quashing and setting aside the order dated02/07/2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,Bhoom, Dist. Dharashiv, in Criminal Bail ApplicationNo.95/2025 whereby, the said application preferred by theappellants for grant of anticipatory bail was rejected.2.By Criminal Appeal No.513/2025, the appellant ispraying for quashing and setting aside the order dated01/07/2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,Bhoom, Dist. Dharashiv, in Criminal Bail ApplicationNo.93/2025 whereby, the said application preferred by theappellant for grant of anticipatory bail was rejected.3.The aforesaid anticipatory bail applications werepreferred in Crime bearing FIR No.0059/2025 registered on13/06/2025 with Ambi Police Station, Tq. Bhoom, DistrictDharashiv for the offences punishable under Sections 64(1), 74,333, 115(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3), 3(5) of the Bharatiya NyayaSanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(2)(va), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w) and *3* 500.25apeal etc.odt3(1)(a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the AtrocitiesAct’). The FIR came to be lodged at the behest of respondentNo.3/ informant in these appeals, namely, Kamal TukaramGaikwad.4.Through these appeals, the appellants are alsopraying for grant of anticipatory bail in the aforesaid crime.5.The aforesaid Crime No.0059/2025 is registered onthe basis of the report lodged by respondent No.3/ informantstating therein that she is resident of village Ambi, TalukaBhoom, District Dharashiv. As per her report, on 11/06/2025 atabout 9:00 p.m. when she was asleep, at about 2:30 a.m. on12/06/2025, somebody knocked the door of her house.Therefore, she woke up and after awaking, she opened the doorand saw that the accused persons/appellants in front of her house.The accused persons alleged to have forcefully entered in herhouse and misbehaved with her. It is alleged that even thoughthey were knowing that she belongs to scheduled caste, still theyhave abused her in filthy language by referring to her caste.They alleged to have insisted her to give undertaking on bondpaper for transferring her land and house in their name. Theyalso alleged to have pushed her down and assaulted her. In the *4* 500.25apeal etc.odtsaid attack, they alleged to have outraged her modesty. There arealso serious allegations of inserting chilly powder in her privateparts by them. They also alleged to have threatened formurdering her if she did not execute the bond in their favour fortransferring her land in their name. It is further alleged that afterthe accused left, she went to police station, from where she werereferred to the Government Medical Hospital. After havingtreatment, she approached the Police Station, Ambi and lodgedreport. On the basis of said report, the crime was registered forthe offence punishable under Sections 64(1), 74, 333, 115(2),352, 351(2), 351(3), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023and Sections 3(2)(va), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w) and 3(1)(a) of theScheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention ofAtrocities) Act, 1989.6.Heard learned Advocate Mr Narwade for theappellants in Criminal Appeal No.500/2025 and learnedAdvocate Mr Nagarsoge for the appellant in Criminal AppealNo.513/2025, learned APP Mr Sunil Jadhav appearing forrespondent Nos.1 and 2/State in both the appeals and learnedAdvocate Mr Tapse Patil for respondent No.3 in both the appeals.7.According to the learned Advocates for theappellants in both the appeals, the appellants are falsely *5* 500.25apeal etc.odtimplicated by the informant/respondent No.3. There is longstanding civil dispute between the informant and the appellantsand the informant is in the habit of filing false complaints againstthe villagers. The villagers had made written application to theSub Divisional Police Officer, Bhoom in the year 2018, statingtherein that the informant is in the habit of implicating thevarious villagers in false complaints. Therefore, learnedAdvocates for the appellants state that the appellants in both theappeals have not committed any offence of assaulting or abusingthe informant with intention to outrage her modesty. Accordingto the appellants, they were not present on the spot. Though theyare residing in the same village, their houses are located around 3to 4 kms away from the spot. So far as accused No.3/VishalDuche is concerned, he is residing 40 to 50 kms away from thespot and at the time of incident, he was at Jamkhed. AccusedNo.2/Baliram Gatkal is 71 years old and suffering from medicalailments. The informant has specifically levelled allegationsagainst them with an ulterior motive in order to grab suitproperty, of which mutation entry was effected in favour ofappellants. The FIR lodged by the informant is with ulteriormotive with intention to implicate the appellants which can beseen from the fact that the appellant/Dinesh Vaijinath Bahirmalin Criminal Appeal No.513/2025, who was not present at the spot *6* 500.25apeal etc.odtat the time of alleged incident. The CCTV footages of theparticular time disclose the said fact about his presencesomewhere else and therefore, the charge-sheet is not filedagainst him by the Police. This shows that respondentNo.3/informant is deliberately making false allegations againstthe appellants in order to implicate them in a serious crime.According to learned Advocates for the appellants, thecomplainant is habitual of filing false complaints and on numberof occasions, she had tried to harass the different persons.Learned Advocates for the appellants in both the appeals invitedmy attention to the complaints made by the various villager on25/04/2018 against the informant and there was a compliant ofblackmailing or implicating them in false cases. They havestated various incidents and the victims of such complaints towhom the informant had made accused of committing crimes.Those crimes have been later on turned down to be falseimplications. Due to such behaviour of the informant, thevillagers seems to have approached the police authorities forinitiating action against the informant. According to them,Regular Civil Suit No.228/2025 which reveals that the informantis GPA holder and wanted to obtain declaration that Gut No.87/Gsituated at village Ambi, Tq. Bhoom belongs to her. Since thesaid suit property has been purchased by accused No.3/appellant *7* 500.25apeal etc.odtNo.3/ Vishal Duche in Criminal Appeal No.500/2025, she haslodged the false and concocted FIR. According to the learnedAdvocates for the appellants, there is no prima facie offencemade out under the provisions of the Atrocities Act against thepresent appellants. They submitted that in order to ascertainwhether, there is prima facie case made out against the accusedfor such offences, such ingredients must show prima facieinvolvement of the accused in such crime. Therefore, theyprayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellants in both theappeals.8.Per contra, learned APP Mr Jadhav vehementlyopposed both the appeals and submitted that the appellants areinvolved in a serous crime. The investigation in the said crime iscompleted. The appellants are residing in the nearby vicinity andif they released on bail, they may tamper the evidence andprosecution witnesses. The allegations are of serious nature andas such, the appellants do not deserve for grant of bail. He,therefore, prayed for rejection of these appeals.9.Learned Advocate Mr Tapse Patil for respondentNo.3 also vehemently opposed the appeals for grant ofanticipatory bail and reiterated the same submissions as made bythe learned APP. He also strongly opposed the grant of *8* 500.25apeal etc.odtanticipatory bail to the appellants.10.After having heard the learned Advocates for therespective parties and after going through the material availableon record including investigation papers made available to me, itis to be seen that whether, the ingredients of the FIR do constitutecommission of prima facie offence against the appellants.11.It is to be seen here that the informant was referredto the medical examination after a period of more than 17 hoursof the allegations made. Doctor, who examined her has stated as‘NAD’ other than red chilly powder entered in her private part, inhis medical report. The wording ‘NAD’ means ‘No anyDeformity’. In this period of 17 hours, there is no material toshow that she had taken any first aid as the allegations ofinserting red chilly powder in her private parts is very seriousand unable to bear pains. It becomes very difficult to believe thatthe victim, without taking treatment could manage to bear thepains for the period of 17 hours. 12.There is civil dispute between appellants andinformant and mutation entry which came to be recently effectedprior to lodging of FIR. The said mutation entry was beingopposed by the informant and therefore, the informant inrevengeful manner appears to have lodged another false *9* 500.25apeal etc.odtcomplaint against the present appellants. 13.The appellants in Criminal Appeal No.513/2025 i.e.accused No.4 in FIR who had been named and alleged to havepresent at the spot at the time of incident, who in fact had beenfound away from the spot of incident as per the CCTV footages.This again falsify the story of the complainant and therefore FIRwhich is lodged against the appellants cannot be said to havemade out prima facie offence against them. 14.In paragraph No.9 of the judgment in VilasPandurang Pawar and another vs. State of Maharashtra,reported in (2012) 8 SCC 795, the Honourable Supreme Courthas observed that the duty is cast on the Court to verify theaverments in the complaint and to find out whether, the offenceunder Section 3(1) of the Atrocities Act has been prima faciemade out. In subsequent landmark judgment of the HonourableSupreme Court in Prathvi Raj Chauhan vs Union Of Indiareported in AIR 2020 SC 1036, it has been observed that if thecomplaint does not make out a prima facie case for applicabilityof the provisions of the Atrocities Act, the bar created by Section18 and Section 18(A) shall not apply. Further in the very samejudgment, the Honourable Supreme Court in paragraph No.32,which is the concurring view of one of the Honourable Judge to *10* 500.25apeal etc.odtthe said judgment, it has been observed that as far as theprovision of Section 18A and anticipatory bail is concerned, incases where no prima facie materials exist warranting arrest in acomplaint, the court has the inherent power to direct a pre-arrestbail. While considering any application seeking pre-arrest bail,the High Court has to balance the two interests: i.e. that thepower is not so used as to convert the jurisdiction into that underSection 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, but that it is usedsparingly and such orders made in very exceptional cases whereno prima facie offence is made out as shown in the FIR.15.Another landmark judgment on the issue is deliveredby the Honourable Supreme Court in Shajan Skaria vs. State ofKerala, 2024 SCC Online SC 2249 : 2024 INSC 625 wherein,the guidelines for determining the issue as regards “when can itbe said that a prima facie case is made out in a given FIR/complaint?”, has been elaborately discussed. In paragraphNos.47 and 48 of this judgment, the Honourable Supreme Courthas observed as under:-“47. Prima facie is a Latin term that translates to“at first sight” or “based on first impression”. Theexpression “where no prima facie materials existwarranting arrest in a complaint or FIR” should beunderstood as “when based on first impression, no offenceis made out as shown in the FIR or the complaint”. Thismeans that when the necessary ingredients to constitute *11* 500.25apeal etc.odtthe offence under the Act, 1989 are not made out upon thereading of the complaint, no case can be said to existprima facie.48. As a sequitur, if the necessary ingredients toconstitute the offence under the Act, 1989 are notdisclosed on the prima facie reading of the allegationslevelled in the complaint or FIR, then in suchcircumstances, as per the consistent exposition by variousdecisions of this Court, the bar of Section 18 would notapply and the courts would not be absolutely precludedfrom granting pre-arrest bail to the accused persons.”16.Very recently, the Honourable Supreme Court, whileadverting on the same issue, was pleased to deliver the judgmentin Kiran vs. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain and another, 2025 SCCOnline SC 1886 wherein, in paragraph Nos.6.1 and 6.2following observations are made:-“6.1 The absolute nature of bar, however, could beread and has to be applied with a rider. In a given casewhere on the face of it the offence under Section 3 of theAct is found to have not been made out and that theaccusations relating to the commission of such offence aredevoid of prima facie merits, the Court has a room toexercise the discretion to grant anticipatory bail to theaccused under Section 438 of the Code.6.2 Non-making of prima facie case about thecommission of offence is perceived to be such a situationwhere the Court can arrive at such a conclusion in thefirst blush itself or by way of the first impression upon veryreading of the averments in the FIR. The contents and theallegations in the FIR would be decisive in this regard.Furthermore, in reaching a conclusion as to whether a *12* 500.25apeal etc.odtprima facie offence is made out or not, it would not bepermissible for the Court to travel into the evidentiaryrealm or to consider other materials, nor the Court couldadvert to conduct a mini trial.”17.In view of the above referred guidelines issued bythe Hon’ble Apex Court, perusal of the FIR clearly makes itevident that the allegations do not constitute prima facie caseagainst the appellants. Long standing civil dispute betweeninformant and appellants and the other allegations disclose thatthe informant had deliberately filed false complaint in order toimplicate the appellants. 18.In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, itcan be safely concluded that there is no prima facie case madeout against the appellants and the custodial interrogation of theappellants is not warranted. Therefore, the instant appealsdeserve to be allowed by granting anticipatory bail to theappellants on certain conditions. Hence, the following order:ORDERa)Both the Criminal Appeal stand allowed.b)Both the impugned orders in Criminal AppealNo.500/2025 and Criminal Appeal No.513/2025, dated02/07/2025 and 01/07/2025, respectively, passed by the *13* 500.25apeal etc.odtlearned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhoom, DistrictDharashiv, in Criminal Bail Application No.95/2025 and93/2025, respectively, are quashed and set aside.c)In the event of arrest of the appellants in boththe appeals in connection with Crime bearing FIRNo.0059/2025 registered on 13/06/2025 with Ambi PoliceStation, Tq. Bhoom, District Dharashiv for the offencespunishable under Sections 64(1), 74, 333, 115(2), 352,351(2), 351(3), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023and Sections 3(2)(va), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w) and 3(1)(a)of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Preventionof Atrocities) Act, 1989, they shall be released onfurnishing PR bond of Rs.25,000/- [Rupees Twenty FiveThousand Only] each with one solvent surety/ security inthe like amount.d)The appellants shall attend the concernedpolice station as and when called by the InvestigatingOfficer.e)The appellants shall not try to contact orpressurize the witnesses or the informant, in any mannerwhatsoever.
Legal Reasoning
*14* 500.25apeal etc.odt19.However, it is made clear that the observations madein this order are prima facie in nature for the purpose ofadjudication of this appeal. sjk ( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. )