KAPIL BALIRAM DHOLE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an Appeal filed under the provisions of Sec. 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (S.C.S.T. Act) challenging the order dtd. 15/5/2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan rejecting the application filed by the Appellant for bail under the provisions of Sec. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with C.R. No. 146 of 2024 registered with Khadakpada Polcie Station for the offences punishable under Ss. 307, 364, 324, 341, 143, 145, 147, 149, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sec. 3(1)(r)(s)(u), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) of the S.C.S.T. Act.

(2.) I have heard Mr. Suryawanshi, the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant. He would submit that in the FIR lodged on 5/2/2024 or in the statement of the First Informant, Pushparaj Rahul Jadhav, the Appellant was not named. However, when the Appellant accompanied the co-accused, Nitesh Jadhav for his surrender in the Police Station, the Appellant was also arrested on 6/2/2024. That after arrest of the Appellant, supplementary statement of the First Informant, Pushparaj Rahul Jadhav was recorded on 6/2/2024, when he improvised upon the story and named the Appellant. He would further submit that so far statements of three witnesses are concerned, there is considerable delay in recording their statements. Inviting my attention to the statements of Mohan Laxman Jadhav-father recorded on 13/3/2024, Sumeet Dilip Magar recorded on 22/3/2024 and Mubeen Farook Maniar recorded on 7/3/2024, he would submit that statements of Sumeet and Mobeen specifically refer to their presence alongwith the father at the Police Station on the date of the alleged incident. He would submit that if the said three persons were indeed present in the Police Station on the date of the alleged incident, why their statements are recorded after considerable delay has not been explained in any manner. He would take me through the Injury Certificate to demonstrate that there are no injuries on any vital parts of the body of the injured. That the Injury Certificate would indicate that the injured was conscious when he was examined by the Doctors. That thus, it was possible for the Police to record the statement of the injured on the same day. However, the statement of the injured, Kabir Mohan Jadhav is shown to have been recorded on 8/2/2024.

(3.) Mr. Suryawanshi, would further invite my attention to the cross FIRs registered by Ms. Sidhi Jaywant Bangar against Kabir Mohan Jadhav and Pushparaj Rahul Jadhav under the provisions of Sec. 354A, 354(D) (1), 506 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sec. 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO). He would submit that the said FIR was lodged on 6/2/2024 in respect of the incident of 5/2/2024. That the said FIR would clearly belie the theory of love relationship between the injured, Kabir and Ms. Sidhi. He would submit that the story woven by the First Informant and the injured, Kabir does not appear to be believable. Sec. 307 and 364 are deliberately added in the FIR with a view to artificially increase the seriousness of the offences. Lastly, Mr. Suryawanshi, would submit that though two antecedents are sought to be pleaded against the Appellant in the report submitted by the Assistant Police Commissioner dtd. 6/5/2024, the Appellant has already been acquitted in respect of both the cases. He would accordingly submit that the Appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail.