State.Ms. Vasundhara v. Patil
Facts
*1* 950apeal520o25.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 520 OF 2025GOVIND DATTA KALYANKARVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND PRASAD RAMCHANDRA AASLE...Shri Pralhad D. Bachate, Advocate for the Appellant.Shri Sunil B. Jadhav, APP for Respondent Nos.1 and 3/ State.Ms. Vasundhara V. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.2(Appointed).... CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. DATE : 12 September, 2025P. C. :-1.By this appeal, the appellant is praying for quashingand setting aside the order dated 26.06.2025 passed by thelearned Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, Gangakhed,District Parbhani, in Criminal Bail Application No.136/2025whereby, the said application preferred by the appellant for grantof anticipatory bail was rejected.2.The aforesaid anticipatory bail application waspreferred in Crime bearing FIR No.180/2025 registered on17.05.2025 with Palam Police Station, District Parbhani for theoffences punishable under Sections 115(2), 296, 351(2), 351(3) *2* 950apeal520o25.odtof the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(2)(VA) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Preventionof Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Atrocities Act’). The FIRcame to be lodged at the behest of respondent No.2/ informant(Prasad Ramchandra Aasle).3.Through this appeal, the appellant is praying forgrant of anticipatory bail in the aforesaid crime.4.The Crime No.180/2025 is registered on the basis ofreport lodged by respondent No.2/ informant stating therein thathe is resident of village Shekhrajur, Taluka Palam, DistrictParbhani. Earlier, the appellant is already booked under theAtrocities Act and in the said earlier crime, the informant iswitness and since then the appellant is having grudge againsthim. It is alleged that on 16.05.2025 at about 01:30 in the noon,the informant along with his cousin Ravi Baliram Asale werereturning from Panchayat Samiti, Palam to their village and onthe way when they reached near Floor Shop at PethpimpalgaonChowk, Palam, the appellant was giving them a contemptuouslook. At that time, the quarrel took place between them andduring the said quarrel, the appellant alleged to have abused theinformant by referring to his caste. The informant’s cousin triedto pacify the quarrel. Based on these allegations, the informant *3* 950apeal520o25.odtlodged the said FIR.5.The learned advocate for the appellant submittedthat respondent No.2/ informant is the witness and is cousin ofthe informant (Pruthaviraj Baliram Aasle) in the earlier CrimeNo.207/2024 registered on 20.06.2024 with the Palam PoliceStation, District Parbhani, for the offences punishable underSection 295 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(v) and3(1)(t) of the Atrocities Act. In the said crime, the appellant filedCriminal Bail Application No.172/2024 before the learnedAdditional Sessions Judge, Gangakhed for regular bail. In thesaid bail application, the affidavit of one witness SangmeshwarPotpole was filed on record wherein, he has stated that he hadseen the accused i.e. present appellant while committing theoffence alleged in the said FIR and as such, he is pretended to beeye-witness. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangakhed,District Parbhani, vide order dated 05.07.2024 was pleased togrant regular bail to the appellant herein on certain conditions.6.The learned advocate for the appellant furthersubmitted that the incident of crime No.180/2025 is completelyfalse and the appellant has been falsely implicated by the sameinterested witness out of personal grudge and political rivalry.According to the learned advocate, there is no prima facie *4* 950apeal520o25.odtoffence made out under the provisions of the Atrocities Actagainst the present appellant. However, in order to settle personalscore, respondent No.2/ informant has deliberately filed the FIRin question.7.According to the learned advocate for the appellant,the FIR registered against the appellant does not show anyoffence made out against him and it also does not containnecessary ingredients to constitute the offence under theAtrocities Act. He submitted that in order to ascertain whether,there is prima facie case made out against the accused for suchoffences, such ingredients must show prima facie involvement ofthe accused in such crime. The informant and his cousin havedeliberately implicated the appellant in order to show that theoffence is committed in public view. He made the statement thatif the appellant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall abide byeach and every condition put to him by this Court. As such, heprayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant.8.Per contra, the learned APP submitted that thoughthe appellant is on regular bail in earlier crime of similar nature,still he has committed another similar offence. This shows thatthe appellant is not having any regard for the law and order of thesociety. The appellant, despite having granted regular bail in
Legal Reasoning
*9* 950apeal520o25.odtof 19.06.2024. However, the learned advocate for the appellanthas tendered, across the Bar, the statement of the said witnessSangmeshwar Potpole, who stated that he came to know on20.06.2024 at 09:00 AM in the morning that the incident dated19.06.2024 had taken place. Thus, the ground taken by theinformant to oppose the bail application of the present appellantwas totally incorrect and that shows the intention of theinformant to implicate the appellant. The present crime is alsolodged by the cousin of the informant in the earlier crime and,therefore, it appears that the interested and related witnesses aretrying to implicate the appellant by registering the offencesmaking similar allegations.15.In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, itcan be safely concluded that there is no prima facie case madeout against the appellant and the custodial interrogation of theappellant is not warranted. Therefore, the instant appeal deservesto be allowed by granting anticipatory bail to the appellant oncertain conditions. Hence, the following order:ORDERa)The Criminal Appeal stands allowed.b)The impugned order dated 26.06.2025 passed by thelearned Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, Gangakhed, *10* 950apeal520o25.odtDistrict Parbhani, in Criminal Bail Application No.136/2025, isquashed and set aside.c)In the event of arrest of the appellant in connectionwith Crime bearing FIR No.180/2025 registered on 17.05.2025with Palam Police Station, District Parbhani for the offencespunishable under Sections 115(2), 296, 351(2), 351(3) of theBharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(2)(VA) ofthe Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention ofAtrocities) Act, 1989, he shall be released on furnishing PR bondof Rs.25,000/- [Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only] with onesolvent surety/ security in the like amount.d)The appellant shall attend the concerned policestation as and when called by the Investigating Officer.e)The appellant shall not try to contact or pressurizethe witnesses or the informant, in any manner whatsoever.f)The appellant shall not enter Taluka Palam, DistrictParbhani, till the filing of the charge sheet and he shall give hisresidential address to the concerned Investigating Officer. 16.The learned advocate for respondent No.2/informant is appointed through the Legal Aid. She is entitled toreceive an amount of Rs.5000/- to be paid by the High Court *11* 950apeal520o25.odtLegal Aid Services Sub-Committee, Bench at Aurangabad.17.However, it is made clear that the observations madein this order are prima facie in nature for the purpose ofadjudication of this appeal. kps ( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. )
Arguments
*5* 950apeal520o25.odtearlier crime, again indulged into serious crime with the samevictims. The learned APP also made available the investigationpapers to the Court and stated that the incident had happened atthe place within the meaning of public view and there arestatements to that effect. He, therefore, prayed for rejection ofthis application.9.The learned advocate for respondent No.2/informant also vehemently opposed the application for grant ofanticipatory bail. According to her, the offence under theprovisions of the Atrocities Act is clearly made out. It was notappropriate for the appellant having been secured bail in earliercrime, to indulge in such criminal activity again. This shows thatthe appellant is habitual offender. As such, she also stronglyopposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant.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 appellant. 11.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 Court *6* 950apeal520o25.odthas 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 tothe 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.12.Another landmark judgment on the issue is delivered *7* 950apeal520o25.odtby 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 constitutethe 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.”13.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:- *8* 950apeal520o25.odt“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 the firstblush 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 aprima 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.”14.After going through the case laws, it is necessary toexamine in such cases, whether, a prima facie case is made outagainst the appellant or not? The second registration of crime isby the relative of the informant in the earlier crime and as such,no independent witness is available in the crime registeredagainst the appellant. It seems that both crimes are registered outof political rivalry between the parties. The order dated05.07.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judgegranting regular bail to the appellant in earlier crime, makesreference to the affidavit of one Sangmeshwar Potpole, who isstated to have witnessed the incident took place in evening hours