High Court

Legal Reasoning

901-CRIAPEAL-727-23 (+2)1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPEAL NO.727 OF 2023Shrirang Nagorao Hattiambire… AppellantVERSUS1. The State of Maharashtra2. Jayashree D/o Rawan Sonkawade… RespondentsWITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.728 OF 2023Shrirang Nagorao Hattiambire… AppellantVERSUS1. The State of Maharashtra2. Amit S/o Murlidhar Ghawle... RespondentsWITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.824 OF 2023Shrirang Nagorao Hattiambire… AppellantVERSUS1. The State of Maharashtra2. Kshori Anantrao Alone… Respondents......Mr. V.J.Dixit, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. Ankush N. Nagargoje,Advocate for the AppellantMr. A.R. Kale, APP for Respondent No.1Mr. Mohit Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent No.2 inCri.Appeal/727/2023Mr. M.S. Taur, Advocate for Respondent No.2 in Cri.Appeal/728/2023Mr. S.P. Salgar, Advocate for Respondent No.2 in Cri.Appeal/824/2023......1 of 8 901-CRIAPEAL-727-23 (+2)2 [CORAM: NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.] DATE : 05 FEBRUARY, 2024ORDER:1. These appeals filed under section 14-A of ScheduledCastes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989, take exception to the orders passed by learnedAdditional Sessions Judge-1, Ambad District Jalna in CriminalBail Application Nos.248 of 2023, 252 of 2023 and 255 of2023, thereby granting anticipatory bail to respondent No.2 inrespective appeals.2.Appellant lodged FIR on 22.07.2023, in short,alleging that he is the Chairman of Bahujan Hitay BhojanUtpadan Purvatha, Magasvargiya Audyogik Sahakari Sanstha,Ramai Nagar, Parbhani. The Society was granted tender ofsupply of food at nine hostels of Social Welfare Department,vide order dated 11.07.2019 passed by AssistantCommissioner, Social Welfare, Jalna. Jayashri D/o RawanSonkawade respondent No.2 in Criminal Appeal No.727/2023was appointed as Assistant Commissioner, Social WelfareDepartment, Aurangabad. She is presently working asRegional Deputy Commissioner, Social Welfare Department,Aurangabad since 29.11.2022. Amit S/o Murlidhar Ghawle -2 of 8 901-CRIAPEAL-727-23 (+2)3 respondent No.2 in Criminal Appeal No.728/2023 is a SocialWelfare Officer, Group-B, who was at the relevant timeworking as in-charge Assistant Commissioner, Social WelfareDepartment, Jalna. Kishori Anantrao Alone - respondent No.2in Criminal Appeal No.824/2023, who was at the relevant timeworking as Food Safety Officer.Appellant in the FIR alleged that he belongs toScheduled Caste category and on 05.02.2023, respondents,who were working on their respective posts have lodged afalse offence against him at Crime No.83/2023, wherein it isalleged that appellant and his Society has supplied expiredbiscuits to the students in the hostels, those were harmful tothe health of the hostelmates. Kishori Alone as Food SafetyOfficer lodged the report with intention to defame him and allthe accused persons colluded together with an object ofgetting the appellant's food supply contracts cancelled.Accused are knowing that informant is a member of ScheduledCaste, and therefore, they have got his food supply contractscancelled and caused humiliation to informant. 'C' summaryreport was filed in the said crime, it means that deliberately afalse complaint was lodged against appellant so as to get hisfood supply contract cancelled. On the basis of FIR, crime No.3 of 8 901-CRIAPEAL-727-23 (+2)4 578/2023 was registered at Ambad Police Station, DistrictJalna for offences punishable under sections 420,177, 179,499, 500 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code andsections 3(1)(viii), 3(1)(ix), 3(1)(zc), 3(1)(t) and 3(1)(q) ofthe Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention ofAtrocities) Act.3. Pursuant to the registration of crime, respondentNo.2 in respective appeals, since their names were in the FIR,filed Criminal Bail Application Nos. 248 of 2023, 252 of 2023and 255 of 2023 for anticipatory bail. Learned Sessions Judgegranted anticipatory bail to respondents. Hence, the presentappeals.4.Heard Mr. V.J. Dixit, learned Senior Advocate assistedby Mr. A.N.Nagargoje, learned advocate for appellant, learnedAPP for respondent - State and learned advocates forrespondent No.2 in respective appeals.5. Learned senior advocate urged that the SessionsCourt has committed an error in allowing anticipatory bail torespondents ignoring bar under section 18 of the ScheduledCaste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. It issubmitted that though there is strong material against theaccused persons, the Sessions Court has erroneously granted4 of 8 901-CRIAPEAL-727-23 (+2)5 anticipatory bail to them. The arguments advanced byappellant were Ignored by the Sessions Court. Because of thepre-arrest ball granted to respondents accused, there is everypossibility of tampering of the prosecution evidence. Hesubmitted that FIR was registered at midnight and on verynext day, tender allotted to appellant was cancelled on07.02.2023 and tender was allotted to tenderer, who was heldineligible in the tender process, in which appellant was grantedtender. It is submitted that though accused persons wereknowing that appellant belongs to scheduled caste category, toharass the appellant, false FIR was registered against him bypreparing false record and by giving false information. Whenthe offence against appellant was registered, accused KishoriAlone was working as Warden at Girls Hostel, Ambad, JayashriSonkawade, was at the relevant time was working as AssistantCommissioner, Social Welfare Department, Aurangabad andAmit Ghawle was holding charge of Assistant Commissioner,Social Welfare Department, Jalna. Jayashri Sonkawade andAmit Ghawle has played major role in issuing food supplyorders and in cancellation of food supply contract of appellant.Relevant record is in the custody of accused persons,therefore, their custodial interrogation is necessary. Forrecovery of relevant record, custody of accused is necessary.5 of 8 901-CRIAPEAL-727-23 (+2)6 These aspects are totally ignored by Sessions Courtwhilegranting anticipatory ball to the accused persons. Noreasonable and fair opportunity of opposing the bailapplications was granted to appellant. On this ground also theImpugned orders are liable to be quashed and set aside, andthe pre-arrest bail granted to accused needs to be cancelled.6. Learned advocates for accused, on the other hand,supported the impugned orders. They submitted that accusedpersons have acted in their official capacity in lodging FIR andcanceling the tender and it cannot be said that the same wasdone only because appellant belongs to scheduled caste. Therewere numerous complaints against appellant's Society.Accused are Government servants and if arrested they maylose their job. According to them, no case is made out byappellant for cancellation of anticipatory bail.7. Perused the appeals, documents filed along with thesame and investigation papers.8. Learned APP, on instructions from the InvestigatingOfficer, who is present in the Court submits that, thedocuments, which were sought from the accused persons areseized from the Zilla Parishad office and for investigation, theircustody is not necessary.6 of 8 901-CRIAPEAL-727-23 (+2)7 9.Perusal of record indicates that on 07.10.2022, 48students gave complaint alleging that appellant does notprovide proper and eatable food. Complaint dated 11.10.2022against appellant alleges irregularities in providing foodarticles. There are number of complaint against appellant’sSociety from students, Association of students that appellant’ssociety has committed irregularities in providing food articles.It appears that on the basis of number of complaints againstappellant’s Society, report was submitted for cancellation ofcontracts awarded to appellant’s Society. Accused personshave taken action while discharging their duty. Prima facie, FIRdoes not make out a case that only because appellant belongsto Scheduled Caste, the action of registration of offence andcancellation of contracts awarded to Society was taken.Therefore, prima facie, offence under Atrocities Act are notmade out in the present case, and therefore, bar under section18 of Atrocities Act is prima facie is not attracted in thepresent case.10.Investigation in the present offence pertains todocuments, which are already seized by the InvestigatingOfficer. Respondents-accused being government servants, theywill be available for trial and they are not likely to flee from7 of 8 901-CRIAPEAL-727-23 (+2)8 justice. In the facts of the present case, pre-trial custodialdetention of accused persons is not necessary.11.While granting anticipatory bail to accused persons,the Trial Court has recorded cogent reason and the Trial Courthas rightly granted anticipatory bail to accused persons. Nocase is made out by appellant for cancellation of anticipatorybail granted to accused persons. 12. Appeals being devoid of merit are dismissed. [ NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI ] JUDGE S.P. Rane8 of 8