PARASRAM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On an apprehension of arrest in connection with the offences registered U/s. 452, 354, 504, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code ( IPC ), vide C.R. No.374/2020 with Police Station, Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani, the applicant has preferred this application seeking anticipatory bail.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned APP representing the respondent-State and learned counsel representing the informant. Perused F.I.R.

(3.) On due consideration of submissions advanced in the light of act attributed to the applicant in F.I.R., I am of the view, the applicant deserves to be extended protection U/s. 438 of Cr.P.C . Perusal of the complaint reflects that the complaint filed by the informant is basically against Shri.B.N. Bodke, Head of Tax Department of Municipal Council, Gangakhed. In the complaint filed, the only act inviting registration of offence attributed against the applicant that he was accompanied Shri.Bodke when Shri Bodke enter into house of the informant. The allegations of pushing sister of the informant, throwing the chair, causing threats are attributed to Shri.Bodke, who is alleged to be arrested and released on bail. The applicant is claimed to be working as a clerk with Gangakhed Municipal Council. During trial, it will require to consider the entry of the applicant was in discharge of official duty or otherwise so as to prosecute him for offence of criminal house trespass punishable U/s. 452 of Cr.P.C . There appears to be dispute on account of land in possession where the house of the informant has to be constructed. The complaint appears to be lodged against the informant and her family, at the instance of co-accused Chandramani Bhanudas Salve which leads to registration of offences U/s. 143, 506 of IPC , section 135 of the Mumbai Police Act, 1951 and sections 3(1)(r) , 3(1)(s) and 3(2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act , 1989.