Allowed

Hiranyakant Govind Samant v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC3 May 2012ABA/326/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this anticipated bail application, the applicant, father-in-law of the First Informant, faced allegations under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The Court observed that the FIR lacked ingredients of the alleged offences and granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Grant of anticipatory bail on the condition to attend the police station and make oneself available for investigation or interrogation as required.

Hiranyakant Govind Samant Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

Dixit

¶2

ABA-326-12.sxw

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.326 OF 2012

¶5

Hiranyakant Govind Samant .... Applicant V/s. State of Maharashtra & Anr. .... Respondents

¶6

Mr. Rishi Bhuta for the Applicant. Ms. R.M. Gadhvi, A.P.P., for the Respondent-State. Ms. Deepali Chandan Samant, the First Informant, present-in-person.

¶7

P.I. Zubeda Shaikh, Social Service Branch, is present.

¶8

CORAM: A.M. THIPSAY

¶9

DATE : 3 rd May, 2012 .

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

1. Heard.

¶12

In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, in order to explore the possibility of an amicable settlement between the parties, by my order dated 17^th April, 2012, they were directed to appear before the Officers from the Social Services Branch. The report submitted today by the Inspector of Police, Social Services Branch, Crime Section, is taken on record. It appears from the said report that it has not been possible to get the matter settled amicably.

¶13

The Applicant is the father-in-law of the First Informant. The allegation against him is that he has committed offences punishable under Sections 3 (1)

1/3

Dixit

ABA-326-12.sxw

(xiv) and (xv) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”).

¶18

I have heard Mr. Bhuta, the learned Advocate for the Applicant, and Ms. Gadhvi, the learned A.P.P., for the Respondent-State. I have also heard the First Informant, who is present-in-person before this Court.

¶19

The First Informant herein has also filed two other cases against her husband and in-laws. One such case is C.R. No.266 of 2010 lodged on 30^th October, 2010, which is in respect of offences punishable under Sections 498-A IPC and 406 of the IPC, read with Section 34 of the IPC, in which, apart from the present Applicant, the First Informant’s mother-in-law, brother-in-law and her husband are also accused. Another case is C.R. No.324 of 2011 lodged on 4^th August, 2011, which is in respect of offences punishable under Sections 323 IPC, 324 IPC, 504 IPC and 506 of the IPC, in which also the First Informant’s husband, husband’s brother and his father and mother are the accused.

¶20

On a perusal of the F.I.R., it is not possible to hold that it discloses the ingredients of offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(xiv) and (xv) of the said Act. The F.I.R. has been lodged on the basis of an order under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 10^th Court, Andheri, on a complaint dated 20^th September, 2010, lodged by the First Informant. Mr. Bhuta, the learned Advocate for the Applicant, pointed out to me that the complaint and the F.I.R. refer to an incident dated 30^th August, 2010. He pointed out that on 30^th August, 2010 itself, the First Informant had lodged another C.R. against the Applicant, i.e. C.R. No.266 of 2010, which is referred to earlier; but that the allegations levelled in the present case were not levelled therein. He, therefore, submitted that the allegations levelled in the present F.I.R. are, clearly, an afterthought.

2/3

Dixit

ABA-326-12.sxw

Without going into this controversy at this stage, it needs to be observed that, prima facie, no ingredients of any offence punishable under the said Act are disclosed. Moreover, that the Applicant is the father-in-law of the First Informant and, that, the marriage of his son with the First Informant was not objected by him needs to be kept in mind, in the context of the allegation of offences punishable under the said Act, and the purpose which said Act seeks to achieve.

¶25

Considering this and all other relevant circumstances, it would be proper to grant anticipatory bail to the Applicant.

¶26

The Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed.

¶27

In the event of the arrest of the Applicant in M.E.C.R. No.5 of 2010 of D.N. Nagar Police Station, Mumbai, the Applicant be released on bail in the sum of Rs.25,000/-, with one surety in the like amount, on the condition to attend the concerned Police Station and make himself available for investigation / interrogation, as and when required by the Investigating Officer.

¶28

(A.M. THIPSAY, J.)

¶29

3/3

Hiranyakant Govind Samant v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hiranyakant Govind Samant v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madhukar Meharman Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Chandrakant @ Gotya Ramdas Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Samir Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Babasaheb Digambar Ghavate Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sana Mophammed Dossa and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Babasaheb Digambar Ghavate Vs the State of Maharashtra