JAYSHREE PRABHAKAR KINGRE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the appeals are under Sec. 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act , 1989 (for the sake of brevity hereinafter referred to as 'the Atrocities Act') challenging the respective orders by the learned Special Judge, under the Atrocities Act, Jalna, thereby rejecting the bail applications. The appellant No.1 in Criminal Appeal No.455 of 2023 had filed application under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure bearing Criminal Miscellaneous Application (Bail) No.486/2023 and it came to be rejected on 11/5/2023. It will not be out of place to mention here that there were in all six appellants in Criminal Appeal No.455 of 2023, however, a statement was made on 4/7/2023 that appellant Nos.2 to 6 came to be arrested on 8/6/2023 and, therefore, by order dtd. 4/7/2023 the appeal as against them was disposed of as it was rendered infructuous. Therefore, the said appeal proceeded only for appellant No.1 (henceforth referred to as 'original accused No.1', as has been referred in the First Information Report). Criminal Appeal No.563 of 2023 is filed by original accused No.3 in the First Information Report and he had filed Criminal Bail Application No.681/2023 before the Special Judge under Sec. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code and his bail application came to be rejected on 26/6/2023. Both the appellants were the accused in Crime No.57/2023 filed at the behest of respondent No.2 - original informant with Seoli Police Station, Dist. Jalna, for the offence punishable under Ss. 307 , 326 , 324 , 323 , 506 , 427 , 143 , 144 , 147 , 148 read with Sec. 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, under Sec. 3(1)(r) , 3(1)(s) , 3(1)(u) , 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act , 1989, under Sec. 4 punishable under Sec. 25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 and under Sec. 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.

(2.) Heard learned Advocate Mr. G.M. Deshmukh for the appellant, learned APP Mr. A.M. Phule for respondent No.1 and learned Advocate Mr. D.G. Nagode for respondent No.2 - original informant, in both appeals.

(3.) It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the appellants that one Prabhakar Appasaheb Kingre is the owner of land Gat No.87 situated at village Sawangi Talav, Tq. Jalna, Dist. Jalna to the extent of 95 R. According to the appellants, all of a sudden the informant, his family members and other 15 people had assembled with weapons like sword in the said land, however, the appellants in defence had told that they should leave the place, but taking disadvantage of the caste false First Information Report has been lodged. In respect of the said incident accused No.3 i.e. appellant in Criminal Appeal No.563 of 2023 lodged First Information Report on 9/4/2023 at about 3.25 p.m. for the offence punishable under Sec. 324 , 323 , 504 , 506 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sec. 4 punishable under Sec. 25 of the Indian Arms Act vide Crime No.55/2023. In retaliation to that though the alleged incident is stated to have taken place at 11.30 a.m. on 9/4/2023, the impugned First Information Report vide Crime No.57/2023 came to be lodged at 19.06 hours on 10/4/2023. The belated lodging of the report has not been considered by the learned Special Judge, which appears to be with ill intention. Further, original accused No.1, as per First Information Report, has lodged offence vide Crime No.155/2022 with Badlapur West Police Station, Dist. Thane for the offence punishable under Sec. 354-D of the Indian Penal Code against Police Officer Mr. Kshirsagar. The said Police Officer Mr. Kshirsagar is attached to Seoli Police Station, Jalna and, therefore, her name has been falsely implicated. There is no bar under Sec. 18 or 18-A of the Atrocities Act as against original accused No.1, who had sought relief under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As regards another appellant is concerned, the investigation appears to be on the verge of completion and his further physical custody is not required. Therefore, his application also ought to have been allowed. He prayed for allowing both the appeals.