Mr. Kailas B. Jadhav for the v. Lavte, APP for the State
Facts
ABA-1791-2024.docIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1791 OF 2024Datta Gangadhar HogeVersusThe State of Maharashtra & Anr.-------------------------Mr. Kailas B. Jadhav for the Applicant.Mr. A. V. Lavte, APP for the State.Mr. S. G. Deshmukh for Respondent No.2.-------------------------CORAM :ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J. DATE :18 JULY 2025P. C.:1.At the outset it may be noted that several orders have beenpassed in these proceedings, from time to time. At the very threshold theorder dated 22 October 2024 passed by this Court may be referred to, wherethis Applicant was granted protection on the basis of certain terms andconditions stipulated in paragraph 5 of the said order. The basis for grantingsuch protection, as categorically noted in the said order, is the statementmade by the learned Advocate for the Applicant on instructions that theApplicant’s daughter is studying in the same class and thus it is practicallyimpossible that the applicant could use any obscene words in her presence.The Court duly clarified that if such statement was found to be incorrect, theApplication would be dismissed.2.To recapitulate the case briefly in the FIR is lodged on the basisof a report filed by the complainant-informant, who was in-charge of theShubham Page 1 of 8 ABA-1791-2024.docsaid Zilla Parishad School since August 2024. There are six teachers, oneclerk, one peon serving in the school. The present Applicant was serving as ateacher since last one year. Since the past four to five months, the NirbhayaPathak of Police Station, Manvat used to visit the said school and inquiredwith the students about good touch, bad touch, any harassment beingcaused to them and/or talking with them in obscene language. For suchpurpose, one complaint box was fixed in the school. On 1 October 2024 atabout 11.30 a.m., the police of Nirbhaya Pathak came to the said school andvisited classrooms including 8th grade class. At that time, some boys and girlsvoiced their grievance against the Applicant which they stated to have put inthe complaint box. When it was opened, it so revealed that the Applicant isbeating the students by the means of stick on their hand and asking obscenequestions to them. Thereafter, when the police of the Nirbhaya Pathakinquired with the 8th class students, they confirmed about such complaintsand the use of obscene language along with beating by means of a stick bythe Applicant. It is in such circumstances that the report was lodged and theFIR was registered. 3.In the above context, Mr. Lavte, learned APP for the State wouldpoint out that such statement made by the Applicant as recorded in theorder dated 22 October 2024 is far from truth. The contents of the affidavitfiled on behalf of the State dated 26 June 2025 by one Kishan GovindraoPatange, Grade - Police Sub-Inspector, Manvat Police Station are to be dulyShubham Page 2 of 8 ABA-1791-2024.docnoted. There is a specific averment made in paragraph 5 of the said affidavitreferring to a show cause notice dated 16 December 2024, copy of which isannexed to the said affidavit issued by the Headmistress of the Zilla ParishadSchool to the Applicant to demonstrate that the Applicant had createdforged document regarding admission of his daughter in the said school.This is further corroborated from the fact that the student portal number ofadmission of the Applicant’s daughter, which was shown as 10980 was notavailable on the school register. Not just this but there is a communicationdated 21 October 2024, addressed by the said Zilla Parishad School to theEducation Officer, Zilla Parishad, Parbhani inter alia stating that theadmission of the daughter to the said school was without any supportingdocuments like Aadhar Card etc. submitted in this regard as also thepurported registration number 10980 was not found on the school register.The said affidavit annexes a communication, which contains signature ofabout 31 students, all of whom seem to state that the daughter of theApplicant was never seen by any of them during the said academic year inthe said class neither has any of those students of the class ever seen thedaughter of the Applicant.4.From the above it appears that the Applicant, who was also theteacher of the said school at the relevant time misused his position increating false fabricated record of admission of his daughter and furtherfalsely stating that she studied in the same class where the complaints wereShubham Page 3 of 8 ABA-1791-2024.doclodged by the students for use of obscene words, against the Applicant. Suchstatement is belied and falsified by the affidavit of the State dated 26 June2025 placed on record with the relevant annexures, as noted and referred toabove. On this ground alone, the ABA of the Applicant ought to be dismissedas noted by the Court in its order dated 22 October 2024.5.The conduct of the Applicant to make false statements beforethe Court does not end here. It entails a far more grave and concerningcomplexion. The Court passed an order on 19 June 2025 noting the seriousobjection taken by the learned APP that the Applicant has misused theliberty granted to him vide order dated 22 October 2024. Pursuant thereto,the State filed an affidavit-in-reply on behalf of Respondent No.1 dated 26June 2025 as noted above. This Court in its subsequent order dated 27 June2025 duly noted that one of the documents filed along with the saidaffidavit of the prosecution is an FIR lodged on 17 December 2024 byManvat Police Station, Dist. Parbhani in CR No.0503 of 2024 at 18:38 hours.Mr. Lavte, learned APP submitted that the allegation in the said FIR was thatthe Applicant in the present proceedings had impersonated as an MLA toexert pressure on the Informant/Complainant in the said FIR working as anEducational Officer to transfer the Informant in the present FIR i.e. thecurrent Principal of the said school. To this, the Applicant filed a rejoinderaffidavit where in paragraph 2 it was categorically stated by theApplicant/Deponent in relation to the said FIR bearing No.0503 of 2024 wasShubham Page 4 of 8 ABA-1791-2024.docinvestigated by the Assistant Police Superintendent, Sub-division Jintur, Dist.Parbhani and on completion of such investigation a closure report wassubmitted to the Office Superintendent of Police, Parbhani. In this context,there is a reference to a letter dated 12 February 2025 which is alsoexhibited to such rejoinder affidavit to buttress such stand taken by theApplicant in the said rejoinder. However, this is also incorrect inasmuch as abare perusal of the letter dated 12 February 2025 would indicate that theSub-Divisional Officer, Parbhani has merely referred the complaint of theApplicant to the Superintendent of Police, Parbhani.6.Mr. Lavte, learned APP has clarified that false statements aremade by the Applicant in such rejoinder affidavit dated 9 July 2025pertaining to the FIR 503 of 2024 which is under investigation, thuscontrary to the averment in such affidavit of the Applicant that a closurereport is submitted to the office of Superintendent of Police, Parbhani. Thishas been duly recorded in the order passed by the Court on 9 July 2025. It isalso both strange and surprising that the Applicant has in the rejoinderaffidavit of 9 July 2025 annexed an internal communication between theSub-Divisional Police Officer and the Superintendent of Police, Parbhanidated 12 February 2025 (Exhibit C, page 90) which is not even addressed tothe Applicant. On 16 July 2025 when the Advocate for the Applicant wasconfronted with this position, he admitted that the statements as notedabove made in the affidavit are incorrect. The only justification given is thatShubham Page 5 of 8
Legal Reasoning
ABA-1791-2024.docthey were made inadvertently. This has been observed and recorded by theCourt in its order dated 16 July 2025 when the Court expressed its strongdispleasure and the conduct of the Applicant the Advocate for the Applicantsought instructions and came with written instructions from the Applicantdated 16 July 2025 to withdraw the Anticipatory Bail Application. It was insuch circumstances that such request for withdrawal of Anticipatory BailApplication by the Applicant was strongly opposed by the learned APP moreparticularly in regard to the false statements made on oath by the Applicant.The order of this Court dated 16 July 2025 will clearly reflect such position. 7.In the peculiar facts and circumstances, on the touchstone ofthe sine qua non of prima facie case applying the parameters in thejudgment of Supreme Court in the case of Sumitha Pradeep Vs. Arun KumarC. K. & Anr.1 the Anticipatory Bail Application deserves to be dismissed asthe Applicant has acted in complete contravention of the order dated 22October 2024 which granted interim protection to the Applicant by makingfalse and incorrect statements in regard to his daughter studying in the sameclass, in respect of which complaints were lodged by the other students,which is falsified for the reasons noted in paragraph 3 above. Theprosecution has been able to further establish that the Applicant does nothave a prima facie case at all but has not come to this Court with cleanhands by making false depositions in the affidavit of the Applicant dated 912022 17 SCC 391Shubham Page 6 of 8 ABA-1791-2024.docJuly 2025, for the reasons noted above. It is trite law that making falsestatement on oath would tantamount to the offence of perjury and isextremely serious, which cannot be countenanced.8.Mr. Lavte is thus justified in submitting that the Applicantcannot be allowed to continuously take advantage of his own wrongs, illegalacts by making false statements on affidavit misleading the Court and thensimpliciter asking permission of the Court to withdraw the Anticipatory BailApplication, after the Applicant’s conduct is exposed. In this contextsubmission of the learned Advocate for the Informant/Complainant in thepresent proceedings referring to the affidavit-in-reply filed by her dated 22April 2025, is noted where there is a reference to a Roznama of the SessionsCourt of 15 March 2025. A perusal thereof would indicate that on the prayerof the Applicant to allow the Applicant to be enlarged on bail, the trial Courthas on 15 March 2025 ordered the Applicant to furnish surety as per bailorder in Anticipatory Bail Application No.1791 of 2024 i.e. the presentApplication dated 22 October 2024 (interim order) of this Court. 9.For all of such above reasons, considering the serious nature ofaccusations against the Applicant coupled with the alleged offences underthe Sections invoked in the FIR and the subsequent developments as notedabove, the prosecution has made out more than a prima facie case againstthis Applicant. The Court cannot be a silent spectator to such conduct, moreparticularly in exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the BNS whichShubham Page 7 of 8 ABA-1791-2024.docis an exception and not the rule. In such factual complexion, the submissionof the prosecution for custodial interrogation of the Applicant, in the givenfacts is justified.10.For all of the above reasons, the Anticipatory Bail Application isdevoid of merit, which deserves to be dismissed by the following order:-O R D E Ri.Anticipatory Bail Application No.1791 of 2024 is Rejected.ii.All pending Applications, if any, in the Anticipatory Bail Applicationwould not survive and are accordingly Dismissed.[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.]Shubham Page 8 of 8