Partly allowed

Rajneet Ramkrishna Gaikwad and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC5 Aug 2014ABA/961/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court rejected anticipatory bail for two applicants alleged of caste abuse making a prima facie case out under the SC & ST Act. Conversely, pre-arrest bail was granted to the remaining accused applicants on standard terms upon furnishing bonds and adhering to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail rejected for Ranjit Gaikwad and Mahesh Deshmukh; Pre-arrest bail granted to remaining applicants on furnishing PR bonds of Rs.15,000/- with sureties.

Rajneet Ramkrishna Gaikwad and Anr. Vs the State of… — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

vks

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.961 OF 2014

¶3

Ranjeet Ramkrishna Gaikwad 2. Ajit Tanaji Deshmukh .. Applicants. V/s. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent.

¶4

WITH

¶5

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.962 OF 2014

¶6

Sanjay (Kaka) Kamlakar Deshmukh

¶7

Vikrant Pandit Deshmukh,

¶8

Mahesh Subhash Deshmukh,

¶9

Sainath Hanmant Gaikwad .. Applicants. V/s. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent.

¶10

Mr. Sandeep S. Salunkhe, for the Applicants in both applications.

¶11

Ms. Alpa Javeri, APP for the respondent State. in both applications.

¶12

CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.

¶13

DATE : 5^th August, 2014

¶14

P.C.

¶15

These two applications are filed by

¶16

the applicants accused in Crime No.89 of 2014.

¶17

All of them are prosecuted for the offence

¶18

punishable under Sections 323, 324, 395, read

¶19

Page No.1 of 6

¶20

19 ABA 961-G

¶21

with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under

¶22

Section 3 (1)(x) and Section 4 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The incident has taken place on 5.8.2011. The informant

¶23

Ashok Bhadakwad belongs to Mahar Caste and he and his brothers were not on good terms with applicant Mahesh Deshmukh and Ranjit Gaikwad. On 4.8.2011, there was altercation between

¶24

them due to dash given by motorcycle of the applicants accused. On the next day i.e. on 5.8.2014, the applicant accused Ranjit Gaikwad

¶25

and Mahesh Deshmukh contacted the informant and his associates at 2.30 p.m. to 3.30 p.m. alongwith their associates and in the

¶26

presence of public on the road, these two applicants accused abused the informant and his brothers by their caste. The other accused

¶27

persons assaulted the informant and his brothers with hand and hockey sticks and cycle chain. One of the accused Kaka Deshmukh, took

¶28

Page No.2 of 6

¶29

19 ABA 961-G

¶30

away Rs.1,000/- from the pocket of the

¶31

informant Ashok Bhadakwad. Hence F. I. R. was lodged.

¶32

The learned counsel for the applicants

¶33

accused has submitted that the incident has taken place on 5.8.2011. Thereafter on 10.11.2011, the informant lodged private

¶34

complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate

¶35

First Class, Mohol, District Solapur which was

¶36

numbered as R.C.C.No.364 of 2011, was dismissed. On 16.11.2011, on the basis of same incident another private Criminal Complaint bearing No.397 of 2011 was filed, in which

¶37

the learned Magistrate gave directions to the

¶38

police under Section 156(3) of the Code of

¶39

Criminal Procedure and pursuant to the said, offence has been registered under C.R.No.89 of 2011 at Mohol Police Station on 26^th March,

¶40

He submitted that once earlier case was

¶41

dismissed, how second case can be filed against applicants accused. He further

¶42

Page No.3 of 6

¶43

submitted that the incident is false. The

¶44

applicants are innocent.

¶45

application. In the supplementary statement of the first informant, he has taken names of all the applicants accused that they all abused by his caste. Therefore, application of all these persons has to be rejected.

¶46

On perusal of F.I.R. and other

¶47

documents, prima facie offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, is made out. However, it can be made only against two applicants i.e. Ranjit Gaikwad and Mahesh Deshmukh, and therefore,

¶48

bar under Section 18 of the SC & St Act is to

¶49

be invoked which prohibits anticipatory bail

¶50

in the cases registered under SC & ST(Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Thus the

¶51

application as regards to applicants Ranjit

¶52

Gaikwad and Mahesh Deshmukh is rejected.

¶53

However, so far as other applicants are

¶54

Page No.4 of 6

¶55

19 ABA 961-G

¶56

concerned they are entitled to pre-arrest bail on the following terms:

¶57

Order

¶58

i) In the event of arrest of applicants namely 1) Ajit Deshmukh, 2) Sanjay (Kaka) Kamlakar Deshmukh, 3) Vikrant Pandit Deshmukh, 4) Sainath Hanmant Gaikwad, in above crime, they be released on bail on their furnishing P.R. Bonds in the sum of Rs.15,000/- by each of them with one or two sureties in the sum aggregating to Rs.15,000/- by each of them.,

¶59

ii) The applicants shall attend the concerned police station on every Friday between 6.00 p.m. to 7.00 p.m. till filing of the chargesheet.

¶60

iii) The applicants shall not indulge into any kind of such offence and shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

¶61

iv) The applicants shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from

¶62

Page No.5 of 6

¶63

19 ABA 961-G

¶64

disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶65

v) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the trial Court.

¶66

Both the applications are disposed of accordingly.

¶67

(MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶68

Page No.6 of 6

Rajneet Ramkrishna Gaikwad and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajneet Ramkrishna Gaikwad and Anr. 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

Subhash Ramchandra Khot Vs the State of Maharashtra

Hanumant @ Dada Nivrutti Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shailendra Dashratha Kawanekar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shankar Navnath Mirgane Vs State of Maharashtra

Harsh Kumar Sharma Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajashri Kailas Zodage Vs the State of Maharashtra