High Court
Legal Reasoning
( 1 ) 945 cri apeal 1056.24IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD945 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1056 OF 2024BALU BHANUDAS KALEVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERSWITHCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 983 OF 20241. VITTHAL S/O. DIWAN KORADKAR2. POPAT S/O. BHANUDAS KALE3. SAGAR S/O. RAMDAS KALE4. BILAL S/O. TAYYANUR SHAIKHVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS…..Advocate for Appellants : Mr. Narwade Narayan B.APP for Respondents/State : Mr. K.K. NaikAdvocate for the Respondent No.3 : Mr. Jagtap Adinath B.…..CORAM : Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J.RESERVED ON :22.01.2025 PRONOUNCED ON :31.01.2025ORDER:-1.In both these Appeals, the Appellants have invoked jurisdiction ofthis Court under Section 14(A) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and take exception to the orders dated30.11.2014 and 25.10.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,Shrigonda in Criminal (Bail) M.A. No.686/2024 and Criminal (Bail) M.A. ( 2 ) 945 cri apeal 1056.24No.653/2024. In both these Appeals, the appellants/Accused have prayed forpre-arrest bail in Crime No.614/2024 registered with the Karjat Police Station,District Ahmednagar for the offences punishable under Section 118(1),126(2), 189(2), 191(2), 190, 352, 351(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023 and under Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes andScheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.2.It is evident that, on 08.10.2024, the Crime No. 0614 of 2024 wasregistered against the Appellants, on the basis of a Report lodged by theinformant/Respondent No.3. The Informant alleged that, he was aware of theregistration of a crime at Karjat Police Station against Allauddin Shaikh andBalu Kale for allegedly deceiving the landowner, Shri Pandurang Gajarmal. On08.10.2024 at about 10.30 a.m., he with his friends Mr. Sagar Madane and Mr.Pramod Pavane were proceeding in the Car of Shri Pramod Pavane fromKuldharan to Shrigonda. When their Car reached near Rakshaswadi junction,Mr. Allauddin Shaikh parked his bullet motorcycle across their vehicle.Thereafter, said Mr. Allauddin told to Shri Pramod Pavane to intervene in thedispute between him Shri Pandurang Gajarmal, who lodged report againsthim and he should support him. Therefore, said Pramod Pavane informed Mr.Allauddin Shaikh that he was not concerned with the said dispute and he(Allauddin) should get settled the said dispute with Shri Pandurang Gajarmal. ( 3 ) 945 cri apeal 1056.24But in meanwhile other accused (1) Balu Kale, (2) Vitthal Koradkar, (3) PopatKale, (4) Sagar Kale, (5) Bilal Shaikh visited at the spot of incident in blackcolour Scorpio vehicle with Iron rod, wooden log. Accused- Allauddin Shaikhpulled Pramod Pavane from the vehicle and assaulted him. Accused- BaluKale assaulted Pramod Pavane with iron rod on his head, while Accused-Allauddin Shaikh assaulted him on his back. At that time, the Informant wassitting in the vehicle. Then, Shri Balu Kale instructed him to settle the disputeby persuading Shri Pandurang Gajarmal. Accused- Balu Kale told him(informant) that, he would not purchase the land of Scheduled CasteCategory persons and he would take possession of the land. According to theinformant, he sustained injuries on his left leg and left hand with iron rod.3.The Informant further alleged that, Accused- Bilal Shaikhassaulted him on his back with iron rod. Because of the scuffle, people startedgathering at the spot, therefore, the assailants fled away. Thereafter, theInformant and Sagar Madane took the injured Pramod Pavane to the Hospitaland then he was taken to the Ahmednagar for further medical treatment.4.The prosecution strongly opposed anticipatory bail. The learnedAPP canvass that, the offence is of a serious nature and that the investigationis in progress. Due to assault at the hands of the assailants, the informantsustained grievous injuries on his head and eye. Therefore, in order to ( 4 ) 945 cri apeal 1056.24recover the weapon and ascertain the enmity, custodial interrogation of theAppellants is necessary, hence, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.5.On 25.10.2024, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shrigondapassed an order holding that, the offence under the Atrocities Act is not madeout against the Appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 983/2024. However, as perinjury certificate issued by the Maccare Super Speciality Hospital,Ahmednagar, the victim Shri Pramod Pavane sustained grievous injuries on hishead. The weapons allegedly used while committing the crime, BulletMotorcycle and Scorpio Jeep are yet to be recovered. Therefore, custodialinterrogation of the Appellants/Accused was necessary, hence, declined torelease the Appellants in Criminal Appeal No.983/2024 on anticipatory bail.6.In Criminal Appeal No.1056/2023, appellant/Accused- Balu Kalewith other co-accused Mr. Allauddin Shaikh had filed Cri. (Bail) Misc.Application No.686/2024 and prayed for anticipatory bail in Crime No.614/2024. On 30.11.2024, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shrigondapartly allowed Cri. Bail M.A. No.686/2024 and granted anticipatory bail to co-accused Mr. Allauddin Shaikh but declined to grant pre-arrest bail to theAppellant/Accused Balu Kale. ( 5 ) 945 cri apeal 1056.247.In respect of Cri. Appeal No.983 of 2024 is concerned, on30.11.2024, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shrigonda passed anorder in Criminal (Bail) M.A. No.686/2024 and held that, this Court grantedAnticipatory Bail to other co-accused (i) Vitthal Koradkar, (ii) Popat Kale,Sagar Kale and (iii) Bilal Shaikh in Criminal Appeal (Stamp) No.12216/2024and the co-accused have complied with conditions of anticipatory bail andproduced the motorcycle, four-wheeler, wooden log, steel pipe, iron rodvoluntarily before the Investigating Officer and weapon/vehicles are seizedunder the seizure Panchanama. Accordingly, Exh.21 Pursis filed in that regard.Therefore, nothing remains to be recovered from the Appellants.8.It is not in dispute that, on 30.10.2024, this Court in CriminalAppeal No.983/2024 (Stamp) No.12216/2024 (Coram: Shailesh P. Brahme,J.) passed an order and released the Appellants/Accused (Vitthal Koradkar,Popat Kale, Sagar Kale and Bilal Shaikh) on anticipatory bail on certain termsand conditions, which they have complied with, and nothing remains to beseized.9.No doubt, the Complainant/Respondent No.3 alleged that, theAppellant/Accused- Balu Kale abused him in his cast by saying that, “rqeP;kegkjkP;k tehuh eh Bso.kkj ukgh- lxG;k ek>s rkC;kr ?ksrks” and assaulted him onhis left leg and left hand with iron rod. Therefore, these allegations appear to ( 6 ) 945 cri apeal 1056.24be general in nature pertaining to purchase of land of persons belonging tothe Scheduled Caste community. Therefore, to my mind bar under Section 18and 18A will not be created as per the law laid down in the case of PrathviRaj Chauhan V/s. Union of India; AIR 2020 SC 1036.10.In case of Sushila Aggarwal & Ors. V/s. State (NCT of Delhi) &Anr; 2020 (4) Mh.L.J. Cri. (SC) 27, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in para73 as under:“73.As regards the concern expressed on behalf of the state and the Union-that unconditional orders (i.e. those unrelated to a particular time frame) wouldresult in non-co-operation of the accused, with the investigating officer orauthority, or that there would be reluctance to make statements to theprosecution, to assist in the recovery of articles that incriminate the accused (andtherefore can be used under Section 27, Evidence Act), this court perceives suchviews to be vague and based apparently pre-conceived notions. If there is non-cooperation by an accused – in the course of investigation, the remedy of seekingassistance of the court exists. Moreover, on this aspect too, Sibbia had envisionedthe situation; the court had cited State of U.P. v Deoman Upadhyaya, 1961 (1)SCR 14, where this court had observed as follows:“When a person not in custody approaches a police officerinvestigating an offence and offers to give information leading to thediscovery of a fact, having a bearing on the charge which may bemade against him he may appropriately be deemed to havesurrendered himself to the police. Section 46 of the Code of CriminalProcedure does not contemplate any formality before a person can besaid to be taken in custody : submission to the custody by word oraction by a person in sufficient. A person directly giving to a policeofficer by word of mouth information which may be used as evidenceagainst him, may be deemed to have submitted himself to the"custody" of the police officer within the meaning of Section 27 ofthe Indian Evidence Act : Legal Remembrancer v Lalit MohanSingh(1921) I.L.R. 49 Cal.167), Santokhi Beldar v. King Emperor(1933) I.L.R. 12 Pat.241). Exceptional cases may certainly beimagined in which a person may give information without presenting ( 7 ) 945 cri apeal 1056.24himself before a police officer who is investigating an offence. Forinstance, he may write a letter and give such information or may senda telephonic or other message to the police officer.” This view was reiterated and applied in Vallabhdas Liladhar v Asst. Collector ofCustoms, 1965 (3) SCR 854. The observations in Sibbia(supra) are relevant, andare reproduced again, for facility of reference:“One of such conditions can even be that in the event of the policemaking out a case of a likely discovery under Section 27 of theEvidence Act, person released on bail shall be liable to be taken inpolice custody for facilitating the discovery. Besides, if and when theoccasion arises, it may be possible for the prosecution to claim thebenefit of Section 27 of the Evidence Act in regard to a discovery offacts made in pursuance of information supplied by a person releasedon bail by invoking the principle stated by this Court in State of U.P.v Deoman Upadhyaya.” Therefore, the “limited custody” or “deemed custody” to facilitate therequirements of the investigative authority, would be sufficient for the purpose offulfilling the provisions of Section 27, in the event of recovery of an article, ordiscovery of a fact, which is relatable to a statement made during such event (i.edeemed custody). In such event, there is no question (or necessity) of asking theaccused to separately surrender and seek regular bail.”11.Therefore, considering the story of crime narrated in FIR as wellas no recovery of weapon is remained to be effected, hence, it would be justand proper to continue the ad-interim bail granted in Criminal Appeal No.983/2024 on 30.10.2024 during the pendency of the trial.12.In Criminal Appeal No.1056/2024 the Appellant/Accusedallegedly abused the Informant by saying “rqeP;k egkjkP;k tehuh eh Bso.kkjukgh- lxG;k ek>s rkC;kr ?ksrks” and issued threats. So also, the presentAppellant/Accused- Balu Kale assaulted the injured Pramod Pahune with iron ( 8 ) 945 cri apeal 1056.24rod on the head. The Investigating Officer has already recovered all theweapons/vehicles used while committing the crime. Therefore, consideringthe role played by the Appellants-Accused while committing the crime, nofurther custodial interrogation is necessary. Therefore, considering theprinciple of parity with the role played by the other accused, I am of the viewthat the Appellant/Accused Balu Kale is entitled to anticipatory bail as prayed.ORDER:i)In the event of arrest the Appellant/Accused- Balu Kale in Cri. AppealNo.1056/2024 be released on bail on furnishing PR of Rs.25,000/- with twosolvent sureties in the like amount in Crime No.614/2024 registered withKarjat Police Station, District Ahmednagar for the offence punishable underSection 118(1), 126(2), 189(2), 191(2), 190, 352, 351(2) of the BhartiyaNyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2) (va) of the theScheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.ii)The Appellant shall cooperate with the concerned Investigating Officerduring the investigation and shall attend the concerned police station as andwhen called by the Investigating Officer.
Decision
( 9 ) 945 cri apeal 1056.24iii)The interim order granted by this Court on 30.10.2024 in CriminalAppeal No.983/2023 Stamp No.12216/2024 shall continue during thependency of the trial. iv)Accordingly, both the Appeals are hereby disposed of. [Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J.]mub