Allowed

Hanumant Digambar Deshmukh v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC11 Aug 2014ABA/1011/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal appellate court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant facing charges of sexual harassment under IPC and Section 3(1)(11) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, citing prima facie evidence of caste-based contravention but noting ambiguity in the facts regarding public view.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; pre-arrest bail granted on furnishing bond of Rs. 20,000 with sureties and conditions regarding police appearance and non-tampering of evidence.

Hanumant Digambar Deshmukh Vs the State of Maharashtra — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

18.ABA1011_2014.doc

¶2

Vidya Amin

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1011 OF 2014

¶5

Hanumant Digamber Deshmukh … Applicant vs.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶7

Mr. Priyal G. Sarda, Advocate for the applicant. Mrs. A.A. Mane, APP for the State. I.O. Mr. Manish B. Dubule, W Dy. S.P., Solapur present.

¶8

CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE : 11^th August, 2014.

¶9

P.C.

¶10

This Application is moved for anticipatory bail by the

¶11

applicant/accused, who is facing charges under sections 354(A)(1)(2) of Indian Penal Code and under section 3(1)(11) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act in C.R. No. 133 of 2014 registered with Mohol Police Station, Solapur.

¶12

It is the case of the informant that she is working as Gram Sevak in Dhokbabhulgaon, Taluka Mohol, District Solapur. In the Panchayat Samiti office, the applicant/accused is working as a Desk Officer. He belongs to Maratha caste and the informant belongs to scheduled caste. It is her case that since September, 2012 the applicant/accused used to harass her on one or the other pretext . He also used to threaten her that he would

¶13

1 of 3

¶14

18.ABA1011_2014.doc

¶15

issue memo against her. He used to look at her with bad intention and also make some obscene gestures. She has given complaint against the applicant, at that time he told her that she belongs to scheduled caste and he is Maratha, hence nobody can do anything to him. Thereafter, enquiry was conducted and some points were held in favour of the applicant. On 30^th April, 2014 he called he and privately passed some sexual remarks and also outraged her modesty, hence she gave the report to police.

¶16

The learned counsel for the applicant/accused relied on the enquiry report submitted by Dy. CEO dated 16^th April, 2014. He submitted that the offence under section 354(A)(1) is bailable. The only offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act is not bailable, however, it has not taken place in public view.

¶17

Learned APP opposed the application. She relied on the statements of the witnesses disclosing that the applicant/accused has addressed her by caste.

¶18

On perusal of the FIR and the statement of witnesses, it is found that the incident of utterances by caste that she belongs to scheduled caste whether have taken place on 30^th April, 2014 as stated prima facie by the witnesses or has taken place as per the statement of the informant is not

¶19

2 of 3

¶20

18.ABA1011_2014.doc

¶21

clear. Thus, prima facie in view of the contradictions, bar under section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe can be invoked and I am inclined to grant prearrest bail to the applicant/accused on the following terms and conditions:

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

(i) Application is allowed.

¶24

(ii) In the event of arrest, the applicant/accused be enlarged

¶25

on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in a sum of Rs.20,000/

¶26

with one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶27

(iii) The applicant/accused shall not tamper with the evidence.

¶28

(iv) The applicant/accused shall attend the concerned police station on every Friday between 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. till the filing of the charge sheet and shall cooperate the investigating officer.

¶29

(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶30

3 of 3

Hanumant Digambar Deshmukh v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanumant Digambar Deshmukh v. the State of Maharashtra

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

Kalyan Jangali Torane and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shankar Revansidha Birajdar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nilesh Pramod Samant Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shravansingh Rajendrasingh Sodha Vs the State of Maharashtra

Anand Vithoba Jagdale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ramesh Bhagwan Madane Vs the State of Maharashtra