Allowed

Gajanan Eknath Talnikar and Ors. v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Bombay HC12 Sept 2012APPLN/3599/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Bench at Aurangabad granted absolute anticipatory bail to 18 applicants facing charges under IPC and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act regarding a dispute over land cultivation and alleged insults.

What did the court decide?

Ad interim protection granted vide order dated 30.8.2012 was made absolute on the same terms and conditions.

Gajanan Eknath Talnikar and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Anr. — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

Cri.Appln.No.3599 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3599 OF 2012

¶5

Gajanan s/o Eknath Talnikar Age 82 years, Occu.Freedom Fighter,

¶6

Raju s/o Jairam Korde

¶7

Mahada s/o Kishan Korde

¶8

Bhikaji s/o Nathuji Korde

¶9

Kashiram s/o Limbaji Korde

¶10

Baburao s/o Limbaji Korde

¶11

Ramkishan s/o Khanduji Korde

¶12

Keshav s/o Ganpati Korde

¶13

Gajanan s/o Jairam Korde

¶14

Eknath s/o Pralhad Korde

¶15

Sambhaji s/o Malhari Korde

¶16

Datta s/o Prabhu Korde

¶17

Namdeo s/o Ananda Khanpate

¶18

Pandurang s/o Kachru @ Sakharam Korde

¶19

Dnyanu s/o Rupaji Korde

¶20

Rustama s/o Rupaji Korde

¶21

Gyanba s/o Kishan Korde

¶22

Narayan s/o Namdeo Korde

¶23

Sitaram s/o Panduji Korde

¶24

¶25

Cri.Appln.No.3599 of 2012

¶26

Rajaram s/o Baliram Korde All Major, Occu.Agriculture, R/o Talni, Taluka Sengaon, District Hingoli ..Applicants

¶27

Versus

¶28

State of Maharashtra through Police Inspector, Narsi Namdeo Police Station, Hingoli and anr. ..Respondents

¶29

Mr C.P.Sengaonkar, Advocate holding for Mr V.A.Bagdiya, Advocate for applicants Mr P.P.More, A.P.P. for respondents

¶30

CORAM : M.T. JOSHI, J.

¶31

DATE : 12th September 2012

¶32

PER COURT

¶33

Heard both sides.

¶34

The present applicants, apprehending arrest at the hands of Narsi Namdeo Police Station, Hingoli in Crime No.29/2012, for offences punishable under Section 143, 147, 149, 323, 504, 506, 447, 427 of Indian Penal Code; under Section 3 (i) (v), 3 (i) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act are praying for their release on anticipatory bail.

¶35

Ad interim protection was granted to these applicants by this Court vide order dated 30.8.2012.

¶36

Cri.Appln.No.3599 of 2012

¶37

¶38

Sukhdeo Ramji Khandare filed a complaint on 28.7.2012. He alleged that on 24.7.2012 in the morning, all the present applicants came to his land and questioned as to why he was cultivating the same. During the incident, they let their cattle in the field and also insulted him by uttering as " Mahara Dhedgya". On the basis of this complaint, the offence came to be registered.

¶39

The learned Counsel for the applicants, on the strength of the documents like copies of 7/12 extracts, judgment in R.C.S.No. 128/2007 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sengaon dated 27.1.2011 and other material submits that in fact, the complainant was previously encroacher of the land. His encroachment was removed and the land in question was given in possession of Police Patil. In the circumstances, there is no question of dispossessing the land of person belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe category and thus the ingredients of the offence as defined by Section 3 (i) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act would not be attracted.

¶40

As regards the insult, it is submitted that the complaint would not show that the applicants are not the members of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and the complainant is of

¶41

¶42

Cri.Appln.No.3599 of 2012

¶43

Scheduled Caste. Further, according to the complainant, the said incident had occurred in a field away from the village and thus, not within the a public view. In the circumstances, the ingredients of the offences defined by Section 3 (i) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act would also be not applicable.

¶44

The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, however, submits that the first information report and the investigation would show that the present applicants had tried to dispossess the member of the Scheduled Caste and thereafter insulted him in his own land. In the circumstances, he submits that the application be dismissed.

¶45

The documents on record show that in fact, the complainant had encroached over the Government land. The said encroachment was removed by the Government and the possession of land was handed over to Police Patil. Further, the alleged incident, according to the complainant occurred in the field, which is away from the village. Therefore, taking into consideration all these facts, the applicants deserve to be released on anticipatory bail.

¶46

Cri.Appln.No.3599 of 2012

¶47

¶48

In the circumstances, the ad interim protection granted to the applicants vide order dated 30.8.2012 is hereby made absolute on the same terms and conditions.

¶49

( M.T. JOSHI, J. )

¶50

(vvr/3599.2012Acriappln)

Gajanan Eknath Talnikar and Ors. v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gajanan Eknath Talnikar and Ors. 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

Dhananjay Shantaram Changan Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Mohan Uttamrao Chavan Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Laxmibai Vaijnath Chorghade Vs the State of Mah

Yuvraj Atmaram Patil and Anr. Vs the State of Mah

Deepak Piraji Kambale Vs the State of Mah

Baburao Hari Kambale Vs the State of Mah