Allowed

Suresh Raghunath Patil and Anr. v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Bombay HC26 Jun 2012APPLN/2166/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed anticipatory bail applications filed by accused persons charged with offences under IPC and SC/ST Act relating to alleged assault and caste-based insult. Bail granted subject to conditions including sureties and appearance before police.

What did the court decide?

Relief of anticipatory bail granted on furnishing PR & SB of Rs. 25,000/- by each applicant, along with conditions.

Suresh Raghunath Patil and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Anr. — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

appln2166.12

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2166 OF 2012 1. Suresh S/o Raghunath Patil Age : 53 years, Occ : Agriculture, 2. Pintu @ Bhalerao S/o Nana Patil Age : 41 years, Occ : Agriculture, Both R/o Ajang, Tq. & Dist. Dhule ....Applicants Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Police Inspector of Dhule Taluka Police Station, Dhule ....Respondents WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2168 OF 2012 Gulabrao Raghunath Patil Age : 51 years, Occ : Agriculture, R/o Ajang, Tq. & Dist. Dhule. .... Applicant Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Police Inspector of Dhule Taluka Police Station, Dhule. .... Respondents ..... Mr. C.R. Deshpande, advocate for the applicants. Mr. N.H. Borade, APP for the respondent nos. 1 and 2. Mr. V.B. Patil, advocate for original complainant. .....

¶5

CORAM : T. V. NALAWADE, J. DATED : 26^th June, 2012.

appln2166.12

PER COURT :

Both the applications are filed for relief of anticipatory bail in C.R. No. 81/2012 registered in Dhule Taluka Police Station, Dhule for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also for the offences under Sections 3(1)(10)(11) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and also under Section 7(1)(D) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act . Both the sides are heard. The papers of investigation were made available.

¶10

Crime is registered on the basis of the report given by Satibai Ahire. One plot bearing C.T.S. no. 135 is allotted to her by Village Panchayat, Ajang under Indira Awas Gharkul Yojna. Her family has no land and so this plot was allotted to her and allotment was approved by the Revenue Authorities. She has made allegations that one Rohidas Patil made encroachment on her plot and so she made complaint against said Rohidas Patil. Revenue Authority given notice to Rohidas and asked him to remove the encroachment. Rohidas took a stand that he has no concern with the property. Some proceedings were taken before the District Land Record Office also but that proceedings came to be disposed of and the Revenue Authority made final order

¶11

appln2166.12

¶12

¶13

regarding removal of encroachment. The encroachment was removed and possession of this plot was handed over to Satibai.

¶14

The complainant made allegations that on 18.03.2012 at 4 p.m. when she was present on this plot, Rohidas Patil came there with the present applicants viz., Suresh Patil and Pintu Patil and Gulabrao Patil. She has made allegations that Rohidas and the applicants gave abuses by taking name of her caste and Gulabrao Patil even misbehaved with her by tearing her blowz. She has made allegations that she was assaulted by these persons and when some persons intervened, these persons left her. She gave report to the Police on 30^th March, 2012 and crime came to be registered.

¶15

Submissions were made in this proceedings for the applicants that they have no concerned with aforesaid plot and they are not claiming any right and interest in respect of the aforesaid plot. It was submitted that the lady had some dispute with Rohidas and Rohidas is granted bail by this Court in Criminal Application no. 2167/2012. It was submitted that only to pressurise the applicants, they are falsely implicated in the case. It was submitted that F.I.R. was given very late and there is no explanation with the complainant about the delay. The advocate

¶16

appln2166.12

¶17

¶18

appearing for the complainant made statements that the lady had approached the authorities immediately after the incident, but cognizance was not taken and when she approached the higher authority, the cognizance was taken and so the delay was caused. It was submitted for the respondent that Rohidas again made encroachment over the property and such complaint was made against Rohidas by the complainant. In that case, it is open for the lady and the State to apply for cancellation of bail granted to Rohidas. The present applicants submitted that they have no concern with the property and they are ready to give undertaking that they will not obstruct the possession of the lady over the aforesaid property.

¶19

In view of the nature of dispute of the lady with Rohidas and considering the aforesaid circumstances, this Court holds that there is possibility that real dispute is between the lady and Rohidas and the present applicants did not give abuses and offence under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not committed by the applicants. In view of the circumstances, this Court holds that subject to some condition relief can be granted to the applicants.

¶20

So the Criminal Application nos. 2166 of 2012 and

¶21

appln2166.12

¶22

¶23

2168 of 2012 are allowed. The applicants are to be released on bail in case of their arrest in C.R. No. 81/2012 registered in Dhule Taluka Police Station, Dhule for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also for the offences under Sections 3(1)(10)(11) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and also under Section 7(1)(D) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, on furnishing of PR & SB of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five thousand) by each of them. They are not to tamper with the prosecution witnesses and they are not to commit similar offences. The applicants are to attend the concerned Police Station on every Sunday for a period of one month between 9 a.m. to 12 noon. On coming Sunday the applicants are to give written undertaking in the Police Station that they will not obstruct the possession of the lady over the disputed plot and they have no concern with the plot as per the statements made in the present proceedings.

¶24

[ T. V. NALAWADE, J. ]

¶25

sga/

Suresh Raghunath Patil and Anr. v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Raghunath Patil and Anr. v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaifulla Daulat Shaikh Vs the State of Mah

Anwarshah Babushah Fakir and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Gaus Nisar Shaikh Vs the State of Mah

Yogesh Dilip Salunke Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Rahim Gafoor Munnwale Vs the State of Mah

Krishna Baburao Kshirsagar Vs the State of Mah and Anr.