DHARMISHTHA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Admit. The present appeal is taken up for final hearing on merit with the consent of both sides.

(2.) This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 07-02-2019 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Nandurbar, in Criminal Bail Application No. 41 of 2019 rebuffing the relief of pre-arrest bail of the appellant under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "Cr.P.C.") in Crime No. 22 of 2019 registered at Upnagar Police Station, Nandurbar under sections 406, 420 and 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Sections 3(1)(f)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 1989" for the sake or brevity). The appellant preferred the present appeal under section 14-A (2) of the Act of 1989 to redress her grievances.

(3.) The prosecution case in short compass is that, the first informant Devidas Khandu Nerkar on 29-01-2019 approached to the Upnagar Police Station, Nandurbar and filed report against present appellant and her husband, namely, Vinodkumar Kewalchand Bafna, for the allegations of cheating, criminal breach of trust, intimidation and castiest abuses to humiliate him on his caste within public view. According to prosecution, there were money transactions in between the first informant Devidas Nerkar and Vinodkumar Bafna, husband of the present appellant. In the year 2015, first informant executed the document of saledeed of his land survey No. 37-3-B located within the vicinity of Nandurbar town in favour of appellant for security of the money transaction occurred in between them. It was agreed that after refund of entire hand loan of Rs.20,00,000/- with interest, the agricultural land will be restored in possession of first informant with title by cancellation of sale-deed executed in the name of appellant. But, Vinodkumar Bafna, husband of the appellant meanwhile alienated land in favour of one Mr. Narendra Jain by accepting huge consideration amount. The first informant attempted to refund the hand loan amount with interest to the husband of the appellant. But, he refused to accept the same. Moreover, the appellant and her husband found reluctant to get the document of sale-deed cancelled on accepting entire hand loan amount from the first informant. Therefore, first informant filed civil litigation for cancellation of the document of sale and for restoration of possession. Taking umbrage of the litigation, appellant and her husband on 20-01-2019 visited to the office of the first informant and abused him filthily on his caste by uttering word "[1]". It has also alleged that appellant while reprimanding her husband for money transaction with person like first informant uttered the word "[2]" by referring caste of first informant. The appellant and her husband threatened the first informant for dire consequences. Eventually, first informant approached to Upnagar Police Station, Nandurbar and lodged the report.