ASHOK Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act , 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Atrocities Act') to challenge the rejection of their pre-arrest bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge, Bhoom in Criminal Bail Application No.37 of 2020 dated 13-03-2020. The present applicants are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.30 of 2020 registered with Washi Police Station dated 18-02-2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 327 , 363 , 342 , 324 , 323 , 143 , 147 , 148 , 149 , 506 of Indian Penal Code, under Section 92(b) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and under Section 3(2)(va) of the Atrocities Act.

(2.) Heard learned Advocate Mr. S. B. Choudhary for appellants, learned APP Mrs. R. P. Gaur for respondent No.1 - State and learned Advocate Mr. S. D Mundhe for respondent No.2.

(3.) The learned Advocate appearing for the appellants vehemently submitted that there is inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. The incident is stated to have taken place in the intervening night of 14-02-2020 to 15-02-2020. Informant states that he was discharged from the hospital on 16-02-2020. Yet, the FIR has been lodged on 18-02-2020. It can be presumed that he has concocted the story. He has intentionally inserted the name of his labour, who is member of Scheduled Caste, just to attract the provisions of the Atrocities Act. The FIR also gives an impression that the accused persons had forcibly taken away Rs.10,170/- from the pocket of informant's pant. It is, in fact, hard to believe that a person would be sleeping at a place, outside his house, by keeping that much cash in his pocket. That story is also unbelievable. Informant is not member of either Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and for the sake of arguments even if we accept his story then, only the Sections under Indian Penal Code would be applicable and, therefore, custodial interrogation of the appellants is not at all necessary. Learned Special Judge failed to consider all these aspects.