GANPAT GHISULAL LOHAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal filed under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, ("Atrocities Act"), the appellants have challenged order dated 18/01/2020 passed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Khed-Rajguru Nagar, Pune whereby application for grant of bail filed by the appellants was rejected.

(2.) The appellants are accused Nos.4 and 6 in connection with the First Information Report ("FIR") dated 17/08/2019 registered at Police Station Chakan, Pune for offences under Sections 302, 143, 147, 148, 149, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC") as also under Sections 3(2)(va) of the Atrocities Act.

(3.) There are five other accused persons named in the FIR. Respondent No.2 is the original complainant at whose behest, the FIR stood registered. Respondent No.2 approached the police station on 17/08/2019 stating that the appellants herein along with other accused persons had assaulted his son Akash with wooden logs, beating him badly, as a result of which the said Akash suffered multiple injuries. According to respondent No.2, the said incident occurred on 04/08/2019. The accused persons including the appellants brought the said Akash to his residence at about 8.00 p.m. where respondent No.2 was present. They stated that since the said Akash was harassing and teasing girls of Swami Samarth School, Amrutnagar, they have beaten him. They further threatened respondent No.2 to send the said Akash to his village immediately. According to respondent No.2, when the said Akash was found unconscious in the next morning due to injuries that he suffered, he had to be admitted to the hospital. According to respondent No.2, the accused persons paid the treatment expenses of said Akash, yet on 11/08/2019, Akash succumbed to his injuries. It was stated by respondent No.2 that since he was repeatedly threatened and also because the accused were bearing the treatment expenses of Akash, he did not approach the police earlier and it was only after his son died and postmortem of his body was conducted that respondent No.2 could gather courage to approach the police for registration of FIR.