SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Narayan S/O. Namdeo Jagtap And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra And … on 5 July, 2019

Apeal587-19.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 587 OF 2019

Narayan s/o Namdeo Jagtap and another …. Appellants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others … Respondents

Mr. V.D. Sapkal h/for Mr. Sandp R. Sapkal, Advocate for the appellants,
Mr. S.J. Salgare, APP for the respondent State.
Mr. H.D. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent No.3.

CORAM : ARUN M. DHAVALE, J
DATE : 5th July, 2019

PER COURT :

1. The appellant assails the order of Additional Sessions Judge,

Newasa, dated 04.06.2019 passed in Cri. Bail Application

No.117/2019.

2. The prayer of the appellants for anticipatory bail was

rejected on the ground that bar of Section 18 was attracted and that

custodial interrogation was necessary. The appeal is heard finally at

the admission stage.

3. Mr. Sapkal, the learned Advocate for the appellants submits

that the facts in the F.I.R. do not indicate commission of offence under

452 and 294 SectionIPC . The appellants had gone to the house of the

informant, they were offered tea and after having tea, they made

1/6

::: Uploaded on – 06/07/2019 07/07/2019 03:25:15 :::
Apeal587-19.odt
offer to settle the earlier complaint and thereafter, incident of scuffling

happened. At the most the incident is an offence under Sectionsection 323

IPC. He submitted that even if the offence under Sectionsection 451 of IPC is

there, it is bailable. He argued that in view of section 15- A, lodging

of FIR showing offence under the SC ST (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, is economically beneficial, as the informant gets

monetary benefits from the Government and therefore there is rise in

lodging FIR udner the Act. He submitted that co accused standing

outside the house has been protected.

4. Per contra,, the learned Advocate Mr. S.G. Deshmukh for the

informant and learned AGP for the State supported the impugned

order. They stated that there is an attempt of tampering the

evidence and to pressurize the informant to take back the earlier

complaint under Sectionsection 354 IPC and the SC ST (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act. There are two eye witnesses. Even subsequently there

are complaints lodged. The investigating officer was managed and he

compelled the the informant to strike out the sentence that he belongs

to Hindu Mahar community. Thereafter, the informant reported the

matter to the superior police authority and thereafter the offence

under the the SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was registered

on 7th December, 2018.

2/6

::: Uploaded on – 06/07/2019 07/07/2019 03:25:15 :::

Apeal587-19.odt

5. Rohini, wife of the informant had lodged the FIR against

one Subhash Kolte, wherein she alleged that she belongs to Mahar

Community and she was having college going children. The accused

was belonging to Maratha caste and was her neighbour. While she

was proceeding for washing clothes the accused recorded her voice

and threatened that he would show the recording to her husband and

she should have sexual relation with him, if she does not want to

disclose the recording to her her husband. This incident was reported

on 17th July, 2018. Then she snatched away his mobile and gave

ring to her husband and threw the mobile in water. The accused

Subhash Kolte took out the mobile and fled away. On the basis of such

FIR, Crime was registered under Section 354 and and under Sectionsection

3(1) (r) (s) of the the SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

5. The incident reported in the FIR which is related to the

present applicant was occurred on 13th May, 2019 the informant

Chandrakant reported that when in the FIR lodged by his wife his

wife , the accused Subhash was released on bail, the present two

appellants visited his house. The informant offerred them tea.

Subhash was standing outside the house. The present appellants,

after taking tea, asked him to ask his wife to withdraw the case filed

by her against Subhash Kolte and offered Rs.5 lakh and that time, the

3/6

::: Uploaded on – 06/07/201907/07/2019 03:25:15 :::
Apeal587-19.odt
informant declined to take back the case and thereafter there was

scuffle and there was an abusing in the name of mother and sister of

the informant and when he was objected, he was threatened that his

children were studying at Wadala and their legs and hands would be

broken. He a also threatened that he would be implicated in a case of

354 SectionIPC.

6. Mr. Deshmukh, learned Advocate for the informant submits

that initial FIR filed by the informant disclose that he belongs to

Hindu Mahar community. An offence under section SC ST

( Prevention of Atrocities )Act was committed but the Investigating

Officer was managed and he was compelled to strike out the sentence

that he belongs to Hindu Mahar Community and he reported the

matter to the superior police officer on 31st May, 2019 and thereafter

the offence under the SC ST ( Prevention of Atrocities )Act was

registered.

7. Learned Advocate Mr. Sapkal relied on the order passed by

me on 12th June, 2019, wherein I had stated that prima faice no

offence under SC ST ( Prevention of Atrocities )Act was made out

as the FIR was not showing that informant belongs to Mahar

community. It is true that the offence is not taken in a public view

as it took place inside the house. Even statement in FIR does not

4/6

::: Uploaded on – 06/07/2019 07/07/2019 03:25:15 :::
Apeal587-19.odt
disclose that there was specific abuse in the name of caste .

However, notice was issued as there was attempt to tamper the the

prosecution evidence.

8. Mr. Sapkal, the learned advocate relied on the decision in the

case of Dalchand Vs. The State reported in 1966 CRI.L.J.236

(Rajastan) and Chandra Bhusan Dubey Vs. The State of Bihar

reported in 1965 (2) CRI.L.J. 841, Patna to submit that in similar

facts, in absence of intention, it was held that there was no house

trespass. I am unable to accept the same. The two eye witnesses

submitted that the appellants had specifically gone to the house of

the appellant to ask him to compromise the earlier matter on

payment of Rs.5 lakhs and when the informant has refused, there

was scuffle and therefore it is not acceptable that it is a not an offence

of house trespass but as no preparation was made it will not be offence

under Sectionsection 452 IPC and it will be under Sectionsection 451 .

9. In the present case there are serious allegations of attempt to

defile a women of SC whose children are studying in college by

asking her to have sexual relation with one Subhash Kolte and in

respect of the same the FIR was lodged for the offence under section

3(1)(v)(w) of SC ST ( Prevention of Atrocities )Act was registered.

The said offence is not bailable and not compoundable, and still there

5/6

::: Uploaded on – 06/07/2019 07/07/2019 03:25:15 :::
Apeal587-19.odt
was an attempt to pressurize the informant to withdraw the

complaint. As per section 3(2)(v) of SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities

Act) offence under Sectionsection 323 and Section506 of the Indian Penal Code as

shown in the Schedule is offence under section 3(2)(v) of SC ST

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Offence to suppress evidence and screen

the offender under Sectionsection 3(2)(v) is also disclosed.

10. I agree with the learned Additional Sessions Judge that this

is a serious crime . In such matter, the person who is trying to tamper

the evidence cannot be protected by the order of the Court.

Custodian interrogation is necessary to find out the truth. It is

different thing that once the investigation is over the appellants may be

entitled for bail with certain terms and condition. At this stage,

protection cannot be given to him. Hence, I find no reason to

interfere with the judgment of the additional Sessions Judge.

11. Hence the appeal is rejected.

(ARUN M. DHAVALE, J)

JPC

6/6

::: Uploaded on – 06/07/2019 07/07/2019 03:25:15 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation