GOVIND GANESH BHALERAO Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admit.

(2.) Heard learned Advocate Mrs. Rashmi S. Kulkarni for appellant, learned APP Mr. B.V. Virdhe for respondent No.1 and learned Advocate Mr. A.G. Jadhav for respondent No.2.

(3.) It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the appellant that the appellant was seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No.112/2020 dated 16.05.2020 registered with Kurunda Police Station, Dist. Hingoli. He had filed application for bail before learned Special Judge (Atrocity), Basmatnagar bearing Criminal Bail Application No.101/2020, however, it came to be rejected by the concerned Court on 21.05.2020. The offences arrayed against the appellant are under Section 295(A) , 294 , 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(V) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act . Respondent No.2 is the original informant, who has lodged the FIR stating that he is a decorator and he was informed by his friend Limbaji Kathale on 14.05.2020 that the present appellant had posted one video on his TikTok account showing derogatory remarks against Mahapurush Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. Therefore, the informant visited the account of the appellant and saw the video himself. He got the confirmation about the mobile number as belonging to appellant and then he has lodged the report for publishing those derogatory remarks on social media which has offended the feelings of entire community. It has been further submitted, that taking into consideration those allegations it is in fact required to be considered as to whether those contents of the FIR attract penal provisions under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code. In order to attract the main ingredients it should be shown by the prosecution that the act is deliberate and malicious. The appellant is a young boy of 20 years and he is a student. There is nothing on record collected so far showing that it was a deliberate attempt of the appellant. In fact, the contents of the FIR would show, that the informant-respondent No.2 had visited the account of the appellant and it was not that the appellant had invited him. In the age of digitization it is very easy to create a fake account in the name of a person, especially on TikTok as well as Facebook. The mobile handset of the appellant has been already seized by police, and therefore, his physical custody is not required further for investigation. In such pandemic situation and the restrictions imposed there is no likelihood of appellant getting absconding. Therefore, the learned Trial Judge ought to have allowed the application.