Dismissed

Shri Shivaji Shyamrao Choudhari v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC13 Apr 2016APPLN/1363/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses a criminal application seeking anticipatory bail. The Court held that a prima facie case exists in the FIR, particularly noting allegations under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Consequently, the application was dismissed and prior interim protection was vacated.

What did the court decide?

The criminal application for anticipatory bail is dismissed, and the interim protection granted vide order dated 03/03/2016 is vacated.

Shri Shivaji Shyamrao Choudhari Vs the State of Maharashtra — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1 Cr. Appln. 1363-2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1363 OF 2016

¶4

Shri Shivaji Shyamrao Chaudhari
Age : 35 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o. Jadhav Wadi, Surya Wadi,
Galli No.7, Harsul, Aurangabad,
Taluka and Dist. Aurangabad

¶5

.. Applicant

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

The State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station, Harsul,
Aurangabad

¶8

 .. Respondent

¶9

Mr. M.M. Bhokarikar, Advocate for the applicant
Mr. A.S. Shinde, A.P.P. for the respondent-State

¶10

 CORAM: M.T. JOSHI, J.
 DATE : 13/04/2016

¶11

ORAL ORDER:

¶12

Heard both sides.

¶13

2.The present applicant, who is apprehending

¶14

arrest at the hands of Harsul Police Station, Dist.
Aurangabad in crime no.I-18 of 2016 for the offences
punishable under section 354, 323, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of

¶15

the Indian Penal Code and under section 3(1)(x) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, is praying for his release on bail, in

¶16

2 Cr. Appln. 1363-2016

¶17

the event of his arrest.

¶18

3.The complaint filed by the victim of the
offence would show that the present applicant, due to
the old acquaintance, had the mobile number of the
victim with him. He started pressurizing the victim by
asking her to seek divorce from her husband and to
marry with his brother. In the circumstances, on
26/01/2016, when the victim did not reply his call on
the mobile, he came in front of her house and in the
incident, he caught her hand and dragged her towards
him. In the said incident, he also insulted over her
caste, which is a scheduled tribe and also threatened

¶19

to commit her murder. Therefore, the offence came to
be registered.

¶20

4.Learnedcounselfortheapplicant

¶21

Mr. Bhokarikar submits that the affidavit filed by the
applicant on 28/03/2016 would clarify the facts that he
has not done any acts, as alleged in the application.

¶22

5.In view of certain statement made regarding
the facts in paragraph no.6 of the said affidavit, the

¶23

Investigating Officer has even recorded the

¶24

3 Cr. Appln. 1363-2016

¶25

supplementary statement of the complainant, wherein she
had again reiterated that she had filed the complaint
in the said offence and on 15/02/2016, the present
applicant has executed an agreement on stamp paper of
Rs.100/-, that in future, he would not keep any contact

¶26

with her. Thereafter, however, again on 18/02/2016,
the applicant over the mobile phone, threatened her to
withdraw her complaint, else he would kill herself and
her children.

¶27

6.In support of his contention, Mr. Bhokarikar

¶28

also relied on the following authorities :

¶29

i) “Vilas Pandurang Pawar and anr. Vs. State of
Maharashtra and others” AIR 2012 S.C. 3316

¶30

ii) “Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of
Maharashtra and others” AIR 2011 S.C. 312

¶31

iii) “Asmathunnisa Vs. State of A.P.” AIR 2011
S.C. 1905.

¶32

7.The facts in the present case, however, would
show that the FIR prima facie discloses the offence

¶33

punishable under section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

¶34

4 Cr. Appln. 1363-2016

¶35

Act.

¶36

8.Upon hearing both sides and considering that

¶37

there is a prima facie case disclosed in the FIR,
anticipatory bail cannot be granted to the present

¶38

applicant. Hence, the following order:-

¶39

9. Criminal Application is dismissed.

¶40

10. Interim protection granted to the applicant
by this Court, vide order dated 03/03/2016 stands
vacated.

¶41

[M.T. JOSHI] JUDGE

¶42

arp/

Shri Shivaji Shyamrao Choudhari v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Shivaji Shyamrao Choudhari 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Sitaram Dond Vs Ajay Dinkar More

Suraj S/O. Deelip Bagul Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ashwini W/O Bhavesh Parlikar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Gajanan S/O. Balbhim Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Satish S/O. Maruti Chavan Vs Gajanan S/O. Balbhim Chavan and Anr.

Devram Baban Lohate Vs the State of Maharashtra