IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1870 of 2018
MANOJKUMAR DAMODAR DAS
STATE OF GUJARAT 1
MR KAUSHAL D PANDYA(2905) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 3
AVANI V PATEL(8016) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2
MR PRANAV TRIVEDI ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2) for the
RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.UDHWANI
Date : 26/12/2018
1. Admit. Learned APP Pranav Trivedi waives for respondent no.1
State and learned advocate Ms. Avani Patel waives for respondent
no.2. Being effectively bail application, the appeal is heard finally today.
2. Denial of bail for the offences punishable under Sections 306,
498A of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and under Section 3(2)
(5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 in connection with the FIR registered at C.R. No.I
63 of 2018 with Netrang Police Station; by an order dated 02.11.2018
passed in CR.MA No. 864 of 2018 by the learned 6th Additional
Sessions Judge, Ankleshwar has given rise to this appeal under Section
14A(2) of the SC ST Act.
3. On consideration of the rival contentions, it concededly appears
that love affair between the appellant and the victim culminated into the
Page 1 of 4
marriage against the wishes of the parents of the victim; the marriage
was also intercaste marriage.
4. Concededly on two occasions of the visit of the parental house
by victim, no complaint was made against the appellant by her. The
complaint was allegedly made on 28.08.2018 in privacy for the first time
and incident allegedly took place on 02.09.2018 . The alleged complaint
against the appellant was that he was taunting her in relation to her
inefficiency to do household work as also being a person from poor
family. It is alleged that she was thus being beaten by the appellant. It
also appears that marriage span was about nine months on the date of
the incident. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that
the real cause behind the suicide was the taunts by the parents, to the
victim that because of her marrying inter caste, the marriage prospects
of their younger daughter was a casualty. Learned counsel contended
that investigation was not fair; only statements of the parents of the
victim and their neighbours were recorded; no statements of the
appellant’s neighbours were recorded.
5. On overall consideration of the facts of the case, this court does
not prima facie find the accusation of serious nature as defined in
section 498A of IPC. Besides; being outcome of love affair between the
couple and thus the relation being disapproved by the parents of the
victim, the possibility of victimization of victim by the parents cannot be
ruled out. Thus this is not a case where the appellant should be
detained behind the bars during the pendency of trial.
6. So far as accusations under section 3 of the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are
Page 2 of 4
concerned, the necessary averments that the offender is not the
member of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are lacking from
the FIR and in similar circumstances in Gorige Pentaiah v. State of
Andhra Pradesh [(2008) 12 SCC 531], the FIR devoid of such
averments was quashed. Thus even under the provisions of Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the
appellant ought to have been considered for the bail.
7. Unfortunately the trial court did not appreciate the above said
legal and factual aspect and fell in error in denying the bail to the
appellant. The impugned order therefore cannot be sustained. The
same is required to be quashed and set aside and the appellant is
required to be admitted to bail.
8. In above view of the matter, the appeal succeeds. The impugned
order referred in para 2 of this appeal is quashed and set aside and the
appellant is ordered to be released on bail in connection with C.R. No.I
63 of 2018 with Netrang Police Station on executing a bond of
Rs.10,000/ (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with one surety of the like
amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions
(a) not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty;
(b) not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the
(c) surrender his passport, if any, to the lower court within a
(d) not leave the territory of India without prior permission of the
Sessions Judge concerned;
(e) mark presence in the concerned police station once in every
Page 3 of 4
(f) furnish the present address of residence along with the proof
to the Investigating Officer concerned and also to the trial
court at the time of execution of the bond and shall indicate
change of residential address if any to the trial court.
9. The competent authority will release the appellant only if he is not
required in connection with any other offence for the time being.
9.1 If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the
Sessions Judge concerned will be free to take appropriate action in the
9.2 Bail bond to be executed before the lower court having
jurisdiction to try the case.
9.3 It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify and/or
relax any of the above conditions in accordance with law.
9.4 At the trial, the trial court shall not be influenced by the
observations of preliminary nature, qua the evidence at this stage,
made by this Court while enlarging the appellant on bail.
10 Appeal succeeds. Direct service is permitted.
Page 4 of 4