AMOL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these Appeals have been filed by the original accused Nos.1, 5 and 4 as arrayed in the First Information Report (for short "FIR"), under Sec. 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short "Atrocities Act"), to challenge the order of rejecting their applications under Sec. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by learned Special Judge/ Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Ahmednagar. Accused No.1 Amol Babasaheb Sonawne filed application Exhibit-18 in Special Case No.141 of 2022, which came to be rejected on 15/11/2022 by the learned Special Judge. Accused No.5 - Sanket Vitthal Somwanshi filed application Exhibit-3 in Special Case No.141 of 2022, which came to be rejected on 29/8/2022 and accused No.4 - Arun Narad Saha filed application Exhibit-13 in Special Case No.141 of 2022, which came to be rejected on 14/9/2022.

(2.) Heard learned Advocates appearing for the appellants in respective Appeals, learned APP appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, appointed through Legal Aid.

(3.) Learned Advocates appearing for the appellants have vehemently submitted that perusal of the FIR, which is lodged by present respondent No.2, who is the mother of the deceased Pravin, would show that she is not the eye witness to the incident, however, she depended upon the information supplied by one Amol Borde, who was stated to be along with the deceased at the relevant time. There was nothing to indicate that the incident took place merely because the deceased was the member of scheduled caste. Even the tenor used in the FIR does not attract any of the offences described in Sec. 3 of the Atrocities Act. The FIR is lodged after delay of about a day and three hours from the occurrence. The said delay is inordinate, unnatural and unexplained. Now the entire investigation is over and charge-sheet is also filed. All the accused have been arrested on 28/4/2022 and since then they are in jail. As the entire investigation is over, their further custody is not required. They have permanent place of abode and they are ready to abide by the terms of the bail. The appellants have cooperated in the investigation.