LAWS(BOM)-2023-7-690

AKSHAY SUNIL BARABDE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On July 19, 2023
Akshay Sunil Barabde Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is preferred by the appellant against the order dtd. 16/6/2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Achalpur by which he has rejected the application for grant of anticipatory bail in Criminal Bail Nos.289/2023 and 290/2023.

(2.) The present appellants are apprehending arrest at the hands of the police as crime is registered against the present appellants on the basis of report lodged by Naresh Dinkarrao Barabde on an allegation that the informant alongwith his friend went to the Chandrabhaga Mata Temple at about 8 pm to observe the auction procedure of agriculture field of various trusts. During the said auction proceedings, there was altercation of words between Ashok Barabde and Nilesh Bonde, and at that time, five persons were driven out. It is further alleged that out of five persons Pavan Barabde and Mayur Barabde abused them on the basis of caste and asked them to leave the hall of the temple. It is further alleged that all the appellants abused them on their caste. On the basis of said report, the police have registered the alleged crime against the present applicants vide Crime No.104/2023 registered with Police Station, Rahimapur, District Amravati for the offences punishable under Ss. 143, 294, 323, 506, 109 of the Indian Penal Code and under Ss. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2) (va) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (For short, "Prevention of Atrocities Act").

(3.) As per contention of the appellants, there is no allegation against them that they have abused the informant on his caste. The allegations is against the other co-accused. As far as present appellants are concerned, general allegation is that they have pushed them and assaulted them by fist and kick blows. Therefore, the offence under the provisions of Ss. 3(1)(r), 3(i)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Prevention of Atrocities Act is not attracted. As far as the custodial interrogation is concerned, their physical custody is not required as nothing is to be recovered from them and prays for protection by way of anticipatory bail.