Allowed

Gangadhar Nanaji Billawar v. the State of Mah

Bombay HC27 Aug 2012APPLN/3216/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted absolute anticipatory bail to Gangadhar, an applicant accused of caste-based abuse and criminal intimidation. The judgment relied on the absence of corroborating witness testimony regarding the public nature of the alleged incident to finalize the interim relief.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted absolute on execution of P.R. bond and surety of Rs. 25,000/- each.

Gangadhar Nanaji Billawar Vs the State of Mah — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

(1) Cri. Appln. 3216-2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3216 OF 2012

¶4

Gangadhar S/o Nanaji Billawar
Age : 52 years, Occu.: Business,
R/o Shivaji Marathi Housing Society,
Sector N-4, Plot No.15,
Moshi Pradhikaran, Dist. Pune APPLICANT

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT

¶7

.....

¶8

Mr. Ajit S. Zarekar, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. R.P. Phatke, A.P.P. for the Respondent-State.

¶9

.....

¶10

CORAM : M.T. JOSHI, J.
 DATED : 27TH AUGUST, 2012

¶11

ORAL ORDER:

¶12

1. Heard both sides.

¶13

2.Apprehending the arrest at the hands of

¶14

Topkhana Police Station, Dist. Ahmednagar for the
offence punishable under section 3(1)(x) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 and section 506 of the Indian
Penal Code, the present Application is filed by the
applicant.

¶15

3.The applicant is the Chief Executive Officer

¶16

of Thermoverita Engineering Pvt. Ltd. The complainant

¶17

(2) Cri. Appln. 3216-2012

¶18

is a driver in the said Company. In his complaint, he also claimed to be Labour Supervisor. According to the complainant, the present applicant has obtained a hand loan of 50,000/- from the complainant and thereafter avoided to make the`

¶19

repayment. In the situation, on 10.4.2011, when the
complainant made demand of said amount, near Tarakpur

¶20

Bus stop, the applicant abused the complainant over
his caste, being of Mahar caste. He also threatened
that he would remove the complainant. In the

¶21

circumstances, the complaint came to be filed.

¶22

4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that, in fact the documentary evidence would show that the complainant himself has obtained a loan from the company in the sum of 50,000/- of which the`

¶23

applicant is the Chief Executive Officer. On the
repayment of the said loan, there is no question of
any hand-loan being advanced by the labour to the
Chief Executive Officer. In the circumstances, he
submits that a false complaint came to be lodged.
Learned counsel further submits that though it is
alleged that the incident has occurred on 10.4.2011,

¶24

at Tarakpur Bus Stand, at 6.00 pm., in the evening,

¶25

(3) Cri. Appln. 3216-2012

¶26

but there are no allegations in the complaint that
any other passenger or passer-bye was present there,
nor any other witness is there to the alleged
incident.

¶27

5.The alleged incident is of 10.4.2011. The

¶28

learned A.P.P. candidly submits that till date,
statement of no other witness could not be recorded
who would corroborate that such insult has occurred
in a public view.

¶29

6. Learned counsel for the applicant relies in the judgment of this Court in the case of Mahesh Sakharam and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra 2009 CRI.L.J. 3831 , wherein this Court held that when the allegations do not show that the alleged insult or incident had occurred in the public view, or that it was audible to the members of the public, though there is a bar provided under section 18 of the Act, still anticipatory bail can be granted.

¶30

7.In the present case, considering the overall

¶31

facts, the official relations between the parties and
that inspite of more than four months, no evidence
could be collected to show that either the incident

¶32

(4) Cri. Appln. 3216-2012

¶33

has occurred in public view or audible to members of
public, nor the FIR disclosing the same, in my view,
ad-interim relief granted to the applicant needs to
be made absolute.

¶34

8. In the circumstances, the Application is allowed. In the event of his arrest, the applicant be released on bail in crime no.II-69/2011 registered with Topkhana Police Station for the offence punishable under section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, upon execution of P.R. bond in the amount of 25,000/- and also upon furnishing surety in the like amount. The applicant shall attend the Investigating Officer, as and when called for a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of this order.`

¶35

 Sd/-

¶36

arp/

Gangadhar Nanaji Billawar v. the State of Mah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gangadhar Nanaji Billawar v. the State of Mah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaikh Turaboddin Shaikh Abdul Nabi Vs the State of Mah

Abhimanyu Deoram Jadhav Vs the State of Mah

Nitin Bhagwan Salunke Vs the State of Mah

Rajbhau Raghunath Munde Vs the State of Mah

Tanku Motiram Patil Vs the State of Mah

Anil Waman Puri Vs the State of Mah